Fundraising shenanigans a matter of law

Many years ago, a libertarian friend of mine called up a Las Vegas radio show to ask one of Nevada's two Democratic U.S. senators -- I can't remember which -- a straightforward question: What's the difference between when a counterfeiter prints greenbacks and when the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing does it?

After a short hesitation, the put-upon lawmaker could only stammer, "One is legal, and one is not."

While the answer missed the point of the question -- the inflationary effects of expanding the money supply are the same -- the explanation stayed with me.

Another friend asked me a similar question recently: What's the difference between lobbyist-turned-developer Harvey Whittemore -- who is accused of reimbursing employees and family members for political donations -- and Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, who dropped a cool $10 million into the coffers of a super PAC supporting Republican Newt Gingrich?

Well, one is legal, and one is not.

Oddly enough, even if he's guilty of so-called conduit contributions, Whittemore would be a piker compared to Adelson and people such as Foster Friess, a big-money donor to a super PAC supporting Rick Santorum.

Whittemore, according to the Review-Journal, allegedly reimbursed donors for hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to politicians such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, Rep. Shelley Berkley, and then-U.S. Sen. John Ensign.

Reid, Heller and Berkley have elected to return contributions associated with Whittemore, including those of the developer himself. (Ironic, since even if he's guilty, those contributions would be the only legitimate ones.)

And that's how these things typically go: A once-close friend and financial supporter is discarded immediately after the taint of scandal hits. Only the die-hards wait until there's a criminal indictment, much less a conviction, before they dump the cash.

But here's the thing: Reid, Berkley, Ensign and Heller didn't desperately need Whittemore's money. They were all in a position to win their respective races with or without it.

That's not true of Gingrich, who got a boost from the Adelsons at a critical time. The infusion of cash into the Gingrich-supporting Winning Our Future PAC allowed it to air a devastating video accusing rival Mitt Romney of being a corporate raider. Based in part on that line of attack, Gingrich went on to a double-digit victory over Romney in South Carolina, reviving a moribund campaign that had lagged under the weight of attacks from Romney and from yet another super PAC supporting him.

And Friess's donation of more than $331,000 to the Red, White and Blue Fund helped propel Santorum to a hat trick of victories in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota last week, giving his campaign its first victories since a delayed Iowa victory.

The point? Adelson and Friess (and big donors like them) breathed new life into campaigns that might otherwise have collapsed. And while those big donors may say they are only contributing to see a favored candidate have the means to compete, we all know political donations are more investment than charitable giving.

Will not Adelson have influence over Gingrich, should he become president? Will Friess not have Santorum's ear? And isn't that exactly why they gave the money? And while Whittemore was always influential in Nevada politics, that influence pales in comparison to six or seven figure PAC donations.

That's not to say that, if Whittemore did what they say, he shouldn't be punished. Conduit contributions are felonies, for both the true donor and the recipient. Sadly for Whittemore, his alleged contributions were made before the era of super PACs, which make conduit contributions unnecessary.

What's the difference? One is legal. And one is not.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.