Dirty Money Non-Controversy

I'll take the recent "controversy" over Ron Paul keeping a $500 campaign contribution from a racist as a sign of his growing relevance. If you're irrelevant, they don't inspect the sources of your receipts, after all.

I like Paul's response- especially his decimation of Faux News' Neil Cavuto.

Neil Cavuto: There are reports, sir, that your campaign has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist in West Palm Beach. And your campaign had indicated you have no intention to return it. What are you going to do with that?

Ron Paul: It is probably already spent. Why give it back to him and use it for bad purposes? And I don't even know his name. I never heard of it. You know, when you get 57,000 donations a day, are we supposed to screen them and find out their beliefs? He sent the money for my beliefs. And if he promoting my viewpoints and my attitudes, why give it back to him if he has bad viewpoints?

And I don't endorse anything that he endorses or what anybody endorses. They come to me to endorse freedom and the Constitution and limited government. So, I see no purpose for me to start screening everybody that sends me money. I mean, it is impossible to do it. It is a ridiculous idea that I am supposed to screen these people.

If you think Paul is off-base here, consider this comment from a Reason Hit & Run reader:

The same people who criticize Dr. Paul for accepting donations from a racist hate group probably don't have a problem with the State seizing assets from drug dealers and using that tainted money for the children rather than incinerating it with the drugs.

Paul's using the money to promote liberty. I'm a-ok with that. Beyond that, I highly doubt anyone reading this considers the relative moral standing of all the people behind their paychecks. In the odd chance you do, is it the case that you shred the check if it turns out the boss is a racist? Or if a shareholder in the company beats his wife? Right. Didn't think so. Glass houses and rocks, folks.