McBlogger has an interesting article about the ethics of taking money from Bob Perry, if you're a Democrat. Apparently there are some that believe that a Democrat shouldn't take campaign contributions from a non-Democrat, which seems pretty silly; I agree with him that cross-party support is important, with one provision. IF the person, as Chet Edwards is, is a Democrat, then I expect him to vote with the Democratic party and not Republican positions, EVEN WHEN he has taken Republican contributions. The point, to me, is people of either party who take money from someone who is well-known for slander and definitely has an agenda to influence legislative decisions through donations. Does it matter whether the person who takes those donations, knowing that the man donating them is a scumball, actually acts in his favor? I don't think so.

Let's take an analogy down to the neighborhood level. You have a rich, blowhard neighbor who believes that he can control the block by giving money regularly to the town council members. He is known himself for the crummy houses he builds that are cheap and fall apart, and you know that he wants to quit being sued for his shoddy workmanship. So then you find out that he's trying to influence the town council to give him a pass when anyone who lives in his dumps complains or tries to sue. You also know that he not only spent a lot of money trying to get one particular guy elected, but that he spent money to create a group to go around in all the media and slander his opponent. And then you hear he's gone on to another state to help THEM keep crime-friendly legislators in office... because ultimately that helps him fend off legislation that might, um, be more consumer-friendly. What everyone knows about this man is that he believes that his money will grease the way for the projects and ideas he wants done... and he's been RIGHT about that. But you, the hapless neighbor on the block who sees this and thinks his actions are scummy, believe it's a matter of character, so that if he came over and tried to give YOU some money for whatever project, you'd (politely) decline because A. You wouldn't want to be associated with such a character-challenged person and B. You wouldn't want the slightest stain on your record, EVEN IF you never voted his way, that you might possibly when no one is looking (that last part is the weary part of politics, which has been so particularly since Bush has come to office-having to look, dig, question every single thing because no action is ever as it appears and some illegal or immoral actions are waiting to be taken when you're not looking).

Another thing-all of a sudden some Democrats, who regularly and joyfully call out Bob Perry for his misdeeds and have excoriated others for taking money from him want a pass for one person who has done so just because he is a particular group's chosen candidate? Hypocrisy, thy name is progressive. If you want an even hand for a guy, then you can't ever again point out others of any political persuasion who take political donations from known self-serving crooks.

That said, I'd give a guy a pass for taking a donation from someone like Bob Perry.. IF IT WASN'T KNOWN HE IS A CROOK. It's not unheard of for a political candidate to return funds when he or she finds out that the person or group donating them represents something shady or idealogically askew. For example, I have no way of knowing whether Hillary Clinton knew all those unsavory facts about Norman Hsu; but once she at least publicly knew, she gave the money BACK. (Now, one other poster here would differ with me about her motivations and knowledge for doing so). Whether she did it for crafty reasons herself, the result is the same; the money went back because she wanted to show that she had no association with an unsavory donator.

The term *swiftboating* has actually become part of our lexicon, used in ordinary, everyday political speech. In other words, what Bob Perry and his group did was so egregious that it wasn't called by the mere word "slander" or "name-calling* but is a brand name for the disgusted who believe that politics of slime are being used against a candidate; and, most often it's used when a *Republican* does this against a Democrat.

The yardstick I use when I'm examining the people who represent me, which includes John Cornyn, KBH, Chet Edwards, Kip Averitt and Sid Miller, is who donated to them, how much, and then checking to see how they voted and whether it's at all possible that the money could have influenced their decisions. I mean, politicians can *say* anything they like, but it's the vote that sews up the deal. Therefore, I'm going to continue to be disturbed when I see ANY candidate or person in office take money from such as Bob Perry, and it WILL influence how I see both that person's judgement and character.

P.S. That includes Mikal Watts, too. McBlogger points out that THAT guy funded Todd Staples. Augggh!