Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

cyclonefence

(4,483 posts)

3. Thanks for the background

Reply to Javaman (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 9, 2017, 11:38 AM

Oct 2017

IMO, if the recipients knew what he was up to, they should have refused his donations at the time he offered them. If they didn't, then I don't think they should feel compelled to return the money.

To argue ad absurdum: If John Wayne Gacy donated millions to the ASPCA, is that money--which would be saving animals' lives--be returned once he was convicted of murder? I don't feel that that money would be tainted. The good it would do has nothing to do with his nefarious character or his crimes.

If the money Harvey Weinstein donated were used to protect abortion rights, would it still be tainted?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Jerry Lee Lewis redux [View all] cyclonefence Oct 2017 OP

His case is why we need taxpayer funded elections. Blue_true Oct 2017 #1

here's my two cents... Javaman Oct 2017 #2

Thanks for the background cyclonefence Oct 2017 #3

it's a good thought experiment... Javaman Oct 2017 #9

Corrolary... Wounded Bear Oct 2017 #4

Good example cyclonefence Oct 2017 #5

I don't get the Jerry Lee Lewis comparison. panader0 Oct 2017 #6

Somebody posted a week or so ago cyclonefence Oct 2017 #7

There was a discussion last week about good art coming from bad people Orrex Oct 2017 #8