This story is reminiscent of the front page New York Times piece on John Edwards last week. Democrats in Washington state have filed a complaint alleging that Republican Dino Rossi, who lost to Christine Gregoire in the extraordinarily close and messy '04 Governor's race, is using his non-profit surreptitiously as a campaign vehicle.

Rossi denies the charge, and while he's widely thought to be inclined for a rematch against Gregoire in '08, he says he has never uttered the words that he's running. Since he doesn't appear to have violated any laws, and since he appears to be fulfilling the mission of the foundation to engage the public on issues involving state government, it hard to see how the complaint has much merit.

We cannot, nor should we penalize people for engaging in public service-related activities via non for profits - especially if they haven't broken any laws or violated any regulations - just because that activity may have some ancillary political benefit at some point in the future. That's crazy - not to mention impossible to regulate.

The practical result of letting folks do whatever they want within the scope of the law may mean that for a certain number of people the concept of a "permanent campaign" extends itself to include public-service/not-for-profit activities in between the actual campaigns themselves. That doesn't bother me at all - in fact we could probably use more of it.

If John Edwards wants to raise money and travel the country talking about poverty instead of going into lobbying or private practice and Dino Rossi wants to spend his time earning $75,000 a year talking about state government and promoting the concept of an "idea bank" instead of making millions of dollars in the private sector, is the country better or worse off?

--------------------------------------------
Follow the RCP Blog on Twitter.
Become a fan of RCP on Facebook.
--------------------------------------------