Yeah, that’s a good point. I guess in light of that what I would say is that, if you are going to have a state-run payment processor, you need to build in a) pluralism (enable and encourage multiple processors) and b) legal protections (legally guarantee that the payment processor has a limited remit in terms of allowing all payments unless instructed to block them by a court order) which would help mitigate or slow down anti-democratic backsliding.

Why would a campaign group have any influence over that?

It’s a good point, but a payment processor run by the government would also be under pressure (from voters) to wield its power to suppress marginal content.

Imagine a US-government-run payment processor right now - it would be blocking anyone that sells anything “woke” or “DEI”.

Ew