by J.R. Anthony

Created on: July 28, 2007

I heard Fred Thompson make a good point the other day. He was asked about allegations that his son was paid to do some kind of political work for him.

The former senator said something like, "Of course. I'd rather have him handle it than somebody I don't know."

Good point, sir. Had I not heard it, I'd probably be on the "no" side of this one.

But the fact is right there, staring you in the face - some families do very well working together.

Chances are that you've hired a family business to do something. Maybe you've gone to a family-owned restaurant, had your car taken care of at a family-owned garage, or had your roof repaired by a father-and-son team.

Politics is business. Plain and simple. Why discriminate against politicians?

The good thing about a campaign is that it's right out there in the open who gets paid for what. So, if you go to give money to a politician, and you don't like the fact that his or her son or daughter is on the staff, it's your choice to hold back your funds.

And just because YOU would hold back your funds, there's no reason - except for your own conceit - to force everyone else to do the same thing.

The worst thing to do is to pass a law restricting it.

People on the "no" side of this debate - If the father is a politician, and the son is a political activist by trade, you're effectively saying the son can't work for the father?

That's not fair. In fact, it's to the detriment of a campaign! Who's going to know his father's policies better than the son, who was raised with the same beliefs?

Would it have been wrong if John Kennedy had hired Ted Kennedy to be on his staff? They're both gifted politicians (can't deny that, no matter how much I disagree with Teddy's policies). What? You want some kind of law to keep them apart, just because they're related?

Makes no sense.

Learn more about this author, J.R. Anthony.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.