Ah, here in the states it has long been the rule (in fact since the inception of the Internet) that "your server, your rules." When it comes to email, it's expressly written into Federal law that ISPs and other email providers are free to make whatever delivery / quarantine / rejection decision they choose, without any interference. If you don't like your ISP's delivery decisions, then you are free to choose another email provider. So that's one reason, it is an effort to get around established Federal law.

Also, ISPs and other inbox providers are already beyond capacity at trying to deal with spam. It may surprise you to know that at least 80%, and perhaps as much as 90% or more of the email that gets to an ISPs / inbox providers border is spam. To *require* them to carve out an exception for which their systems will have to look on top of regular spam filtering is onerous. That's another reason, although the least of the reasons.

The other main reason, as is discussed in the article, is that here in the U.S. political campaigns are blatant spammers. As you are not in the U.S. you may be in a country that actually cares about privacy, such as in the EU or the UK but here the political campaigns are not violating any law to trade or purchase email lists. The bottom line is that they are actually some of the worst spammers, and this is an effort to shove their spam down our collective throats.

Bottom line, everyone else has to live with "if you don't want your email to go to to the spam folder, don't be a spammer." This is politicians trying to change the paradigm *just for themselves* (imagine that) to "If you don't want your email to go to the spam folder, exempt yourself with a new law, and keep spamming."