If they would, there'd be many people on the streets talking about fraud and whatnot, all the while ignoring fiat donations and shady dealings during an election campaign.
I suspect you're right.
I've worked on the legal/compliance of side of campaigns before. While it seems like the FPPC, FEC and others are open to the idea of political committees accepting cryptocurrency, there are a couple angles from which it seems problematic.
For one thing, regulators may opine that BTC contributions are akin to cash contributions because there are no banks involved and there's no way to verify funding source. If so, that means there will be much lower contribution limits than for checks or credit cards. That's one way to limit allegations of campaign money laundering and fraud -- by limiting the amount of money that can come from cryptocurrency.
Also, inevitably these bitcoins will be converted into fiat knowing that not every campaign materials and/or services can be paid with bitcoin, so what's the fuss about?
I think it's about knowing/verifying/disclosing the identity of donors. In California elections, donors of $100 or more are supposed to be publicly disclosed on campaign finance reports.
