"While there's no information that we have or evidence showing that the contributions were illegal in any way, we have a campaign policy that if we have information that a contributor or someone directing contributions to the campaign has or may have committed a felony, then it's the policy to either return the funds or make a charitable donation."

While I don't agree that campaigns should automatically reject money from those with felony convictions -- felons should have the same right to contribute to society and seek to better their government as everyone else -- it seems like they are all in agreement that the money is not worth the aggravation that might result if the donations were publicized. That's very short-sighted in my view. Allowing felons, particularly after they've served their sentence to become engaged in the political process likely gives them a greater investment in remaining law-abiding and reduces recidivism.

I hope the Hsu case doesn't result in campaigns demanding past criminal history information from those who seek to contribute. That would be a bad precedent.

My criticism stands of the Wall St. Journal article that implied there was something wrong about the Paw donations without any evidence to that effect. The LA Times, it turns out, did a much better job of reporting on Mr. Hsu.

As for Mr. Hsu, in a statement released today, he said:

"I believe I properly resolved all of the legal issues related to my bankruptcy in the early 1990s. Therefore, I was surprised to learn that there appears to be an outstanding warrant _ as demonstrated by the fact that I have and do live a public life. I have not sought to evade any of my obligations and certainly not the law."