It is there on the screen-shot I posted.
Michael Guest's email is consistent with that, not inconsistent.
I retract my criticism, given that a person could, if he/she choses, donate 23 cents online, presumably at least, via the "Other" option. The screen-shot from this weekend does allow it:
So, Michael Guest's email is correct, and I was in error, here and here.
Now, would you prefer the "issues" be more fully addressed on the Tinklenberg website? That is my criticism, here, which I continue to feel. Same continuing "hollow content" belief, here.
However, I was wrong, there always was, as on the Franken, Sarvi, and Madia websites, the option to make an "other" donation beyond numbers solicited expressly on the several websites. Franken's contribution page indicates (at the bottom) you can use alternative payment access pages, and it looks as if the other candidates do not have or do not expressly offer that feature.
The Tinklenberg screen-shot above shows it. For the other DFL candidates I mentioned, see:
Franken.
Sarvi.
Madia.
All four sites allow donations "other" than in their solicited incremental values.
And if you care to help Bob Olson reach a break-even point, and do that online, he offers no solicitation numbers, only the option of declaring an amount:
Olson.
Each URL looks a bit different. Encryption is used and when you are listing or giving out a credit card number online, it might be best if you went to the candidate's home page, and toggeled from there to the contribute page, to get a fresh link.
In summary, "Other" is permitted each place. I was wrong about the Michael Guest email for Tinklenberg solicitations - it is in line with the Tinklenberg campaign website and not incompatible or unsynchronized. Tinklenberg simply solicits with a higher express starting number. Some sites are not as clear as others on the $2300 per person, per cycle limit. And my criticism of empty "issue" statement content is something I continue to believe in (apart from the contribution solicition mechanism details). Finally, I cannot really say "issue" presentation pages are handled better by candidates besides Tinklenberg. I have not looked at those sites as intently, nor have I excerpted them. I do not back away from my viewing Tinklenberg statements as weak and inadequately incomplete, on issues.
BOTTOM LINE: Other than explicitly correcting the error now, as soon as it was first noted to me, I cannot "unpublish" earlier content. I retract my criticism of Michael Guest's email. Based on seeing the "Other" option he was totally correct in his email, I was wrong. I wish that someone had pointed out my error before I published anything about the email from Michael Guest. And I can still suggest giving Tinklenberg a twenty-three cent donation, as all I think he is worth - the First Amendment is inclusive enough to allow that as premissable speech about a public person. You can disagree, and say so via a comment, or any other way you choose (short of fire bombing the house or using firearms). And you can send me money instead of sending it to campaigns. If you did that I would not refuse it. I would spend it on myself, and I would be appreciative.