This is an unfair article. It makes a ridiculous assumption that "it's safe to say most other politicians would have returned the $500." Are political candidates now supposed to screen every donor for their personal beliefs and reject donations from people whose opinions are unpopular? The whole argument is absurd. If the money was laundered or stolen, that's one thing, but the idea that a person's beliefs or thoughts are able to taint their donations is just ridiculous. Conveniently ignored is the millions of dollars that special interests funnel to the other candidates.
I'm certainly not defending Black's bigotry, but if candidates (who am I kidding? these rules apparently only apply to Paul) are now supposed to reject donations from racists, what will be next? Adulterers? Gay people? Imagine reading this: "Ron Paul received $500 from Steve Smith of Florida, who is an openly gay and adulterous man. It's safe to say that any politician who doesn't enthusiastically support gay rights and infidelity would certainly return the money!" Ridiculous, isn't it?
The fact is, this isn't even a reasonable attack. Every presidential candidate has undoubtedly received donations from racists and bigots. Who cares? Does their accepting these donations say anything about the candidates' stances on racism and bigotry? Of course not.
Unless these people are suggesting we implement some kind of Thought Police Force to screen every political donor's personal and moral background before donating, they need to stop embarrassing themselves by bringing this up. And if they are suggesting that, then they need to listen to Paul speak for a while.
Why don't they just move on to reporting on, you know, a *real* scandal or bit of dirt from which to attack Ron Paul?
...Oh, right.
