George Harris KC Star Reader Advisory Panel 2008
Is Jesse Jackson Jr. naive, corrupt, honest or vindictive? You decide.

Kenneth Edmonds, a spokesman for Jesse Jackson Jr., told CNN Tuesday that in 2006 Mr. Jackson spoke with the U.S. Attorney’s office about attempts by Rod Blagojevich to solicit campaign contributions for his 2002 campaign for governor.

Jackson didn’t give the $25,000 requested, and after Blagojevich was elected, Jackson’s wife didn’t get a job as director of the state lottery commission that she sought. Blagojevich reportedly told Jackson, “See what $25,000 would have done?”

So in 2006 Jackson heard about the Rezko corruption trial and his $25,000 donation to Blagojevich. That’s when Jackson went to the U.S. Attorney. He may have talked on other occasions as well.

But Blagojevich's asking Jackson for a campaign donation wouldn’t have been a crime, and the governor’s decision not to give Jackson’s wife a job isn’t likely a crime either. Jackson may have been angry at Blagojevich for not giving his wife a job. Nevertheless, his trip to the U.S. Attorney wouldn’t have been particularly damaging to the governor, and Jackson would surely have learned the distinction between normal politics and outright corruption, hazy as that distinction seems to most people.

But out of vindictiveness, did Jackson then decide to entrap Blagojevich by getting him to ask for money in exchange for giving Jackson the Illinois Senate seat? Did he intend to report the crime to Patrick Fitzgerald? Or was the price just more than Jackson could pay for the favor, and was he overheard on wiretaps arguing about the price?

If Jackson had been fully cooperating with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in setting up Blagojevich (and Jackson's spokesman says he wasn't), it seems unlikely that he would call a press conference to protest his innocence. More likely he would just wait for the truth to come out and reveal that he was actually aiding the law. Some bloggers have criticized Jackson for being a snitch, but surely he isn't worried about this label sticking.

So then does Jackson believe he’s going to come out looking bad even if he didn’t commit or intend to commit a crime? Is he indignant because he tried unsuccessfully to get Blagojevich in 2006 and now is caught up in the appearance of corruption?

Ah, politics. It's true that we could all just sit back and wait for Patrick Fitzgerald to reveal all. But thinking about the Jackson drama may help us all better understand the dilemmas in political life.