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.