The more we learn about your political spending rules, the less sense they seem to make—we must be missing some central truth. Take the case of poor Thomas Wright, hard-working legislator from Wilmington. If contributors sent checks to his "nonprofit" organization and he got the money, that was OK? But it wasn't OK that they sent checks to his campaign and he got the money? If that's right, how come a $400 haircut is a legal campaign expense?
Get a grip, Zork, you're over-analyzing. Wright took campaign contributions, didn't report them, put them in his personal bank account instead of his campaign account, and got caught. Apparently, he didn't want us to know about his haircuts, or his Victoria's Secret purchases either, because you're right, there's just about nothing you can't spend campaign money on if you're willing to have it show up in a public filing. But his real crime was being too lazy to set up his nonprofit organization properly. It's so simple to do, and then whatever his supporters paid him would be a) legal, and b) tax-deductible. Or maybe, Zork, you don't think his "campaign contributors" knew what he was doing with their money?