Roy B Refuses to Return Felons' Contributions

According to a story in today's Joplin Globe, Congressman Roy Blunt (R- K Street) has denied a request from the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress that he return more than $13,000 in political contributions from indicted GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff and from Brent Wilkes, who was implicated recently in the Duke Cunningham scandal.

Fired Up has reported on these Blunt connections as far back as August of this year.

The Globe quotes the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress's Director Mike Casey as having written Blunt, asking...

"You are one of the members of Congress who has accepted significant contributions from defense contractors described as former Rep. Randy Cunningham's co-conspirators. We are asking that you give these tainted donations to charity and set a positive ethical example.

"As you are undoubtedly well aware, Congress has endured a string of recent ethical problems: From former Majority Leader Tom DeLay's indictment to the ongoing investigation of indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, public confidence has been shaken time and again. You can become part of the solution."

As one might expect of Blunt, he promptly had his spokeswoman (ed. note: The Globe incorrectly identifies Taylor as "spokesman") Burson Taylor issue a statement that indicated he would not be returning any of the money, noting that if he had to return all of his campaign contributions that came from criminals there wouldn't be much left:

"All contributions to the Rely on Your Beliefs Fund were completely legal and proper and therefore will not be returned. Congressman Blunt is in no way involved with the current allegations against Duke Cunningham. He has not been accused of any improper or unethical behavior, and any attempt by these shadowy, D.C.-based liberal groups to associate Congressman Blunt with this situation is disingenuous."

Beyond the denial, there's a certain charmingly misguided and revealing logic to the Blunt statement. It assumes that people will somehow adjudge less favorably association with an individual or group that is merely "shadowy" than they will association and financial connection to an individual that is demonstrably corrupt. This sort of rationalization is, I'm sure, a necessary mechanism for politicians like Blunt who like to claim the moral high-ground while wallowing in the depths with the likes of Mitchell Wade and Jack Abramoff. It also tells us quite a bit about just how Blunt and his cronies come up with their one-off sense of right and wrong.

Perhaps for the tiny sliver of the population who have greater disregard for things that are "liberal" or "D.C.-based" than they do for things that are outright "criminal", "fraudulent", or "indicted" this statement is satisfying. I think the rest of us need something more.