A Stitch in Haste

If you had any lingering doubts that all politicians are, by definition, moral defective, then let those doubts be forever dispelled:

Elrick Williams's toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year's presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
...
Such campaign donations from young children would almost certainly run afoul of campaign finance regulations, several campaign lawyers said. But as bundlers seek to raise higher and higher sums for presidential contenders this year, the number who are turning to checks from underage givers appears to be on the rise.
...
Although campaign finance laws set a limit of $2,300 per donor per campaign, they do not explicitly bar donors based on age. And young donors abound in the fundraising reports filed by presidential contenders this year.

You don't know who to bitch-slap first:

--the sleazeball politicians for robbing the cradle (or, in Obama's case, suddenly "discovering" their own "no kiddie money" policies only after they're caught breaking them — the article notes that this is a recurring problem in the Obama campaign, not a one-time aberration), or

--the sleazeball parents who use their kids as fronts to launder unethical if not illegal campaign cash.

More:

Paula Madison, a Los Angeles entertainment executive who is one of Elrick Williams's sisters (he referred calls to her), said Williams had not been regularly involved in political fundraising but got excited about the notion of seeing an African American elected president. He talked to every member of the family about his desire to help Obama. One relative served as a trustee for a fund set up for Williams's children, nieces and nephews, Madison said.

They believed that because a trustee was legally responsible for handling the children's money, that trustee could make the donations on their behalf.

They "believed" wrong. So wrong that if I were a prosecutor I would seek indictments against any such trustees who squandered any minor's trust fund assets on campaign contributions. If I were a juror in any such trial, then I would summarily vote to convict. Such financial malpractice can never, under any circumstances, not constitute criminal breach of fiduciary duty (not to mention plain old theft).

---

Just to be clear: I remain unequivocally opposed to campaign contribution limits and the hopelessly schizophrenic holding of Buckley v. Valeo. But I also believe in the enduring robustness of the legal doctrine of infant incompetence and certainly in the solemnity of fiduciary duty. Those long-standing rules clearly trump the reductio ad absurdum propositions that a two-year old can make an informed decision about donating to a political campaign, or that a trustee is legally authorized to make that decision for her.