From the Right Corner: The democrat concept of “Non-partisan.”

King County Executive Ron Sims, desperately manufacturing a swimming pool full of whitewash to get him through the King County Elections Office mess, put one Cheryl Scott in charge of an allegedly non-partisan commission to investigate this situation (having turned down a similar offer from Secretary of State Sam Reed, who, while not the most Republican of Republicans, certainly does know a thing or two about election law... something NONE of the commission members appointed by Sims have the faintest clue about.)

Now, it’s easy to see why ol’ Ron wanted to label this commission "non-partisan." He wants this panel to exonerate him (That is, clear Sims of any wrong doing) and he wants people to actually buy into the idea that Sims is doing all he can to address the problems of the last election and so forth.

I got that.

OK. This leads us to today’s quiz question: In the landscape of politics, can someone making campaign contributions as illustrated in the chart below be considered “non-partisan?” Because this chart represents Cheryl Scott’s contributions in the last election cycle for statewide and legislative races... with, apparently, a similar breakdown for Federal races.



Now, the fine folks at soundpolitics.com knew about this almost the moment Sims announced Scott as his choice to run the “commission.” They were also kind enough to put this chart together. Do you think that Sims, himself, was unaware of this? And could these numbers have had just the tiniest bit of influence in Sims' selection?