For what purpose?
What is this naive question?
This question is intended as a question for you. I do not know your thoughts in their entirety and this is merely an act of communication: no ulterior motive. I just want to make sure I understand your whole argument rather than create an accidental strawman.
Quite unfortunate.
Are you going to fight those who attack users that enrol several accounts in campaigns actively?
Sure: after all, as of the time writing this post, I still see no logical precursor for this rule.
If there are no such users, keep the rule.
I don't follow. The situation you are creating is one where the rule is implemented either directly via a genuine rule or indirectly via retaliation from other users.
All I am asking is if you, and people who are supporting this, are going to defend the people who are going to use it and get attacked for using it. Simple as that.
Like I said, this is trivial; I could fill probably half of all decent BTC running campaign without blinking. Is such a case a desired outcome? At least with a rule, there's a deterrent in the form of punishment (you'd get kicked out and likely neg. rated afterwards ruining your accounts).
It is
equally trivial to prevent your accounts from being linked. Again, I fail to see the practicality of the rule -- I might understand the rationale once you indicate the negatives of an individual's account list encompassing a significant portion of the signature campaign.
Given the amount of people that got caught "trivially preventing account-linking", this argument does not stand.