NightFox
Wildling
Your analogy isn't quite accurate since contracting someone to commit murder is conspiracy to commit a crime (which is in an of itself both immoral and criminal), a politician accepting a donation isn't a crime, a politician carrying out his/her duties in a way that favors those giving said donations is breach of the public trust carried out solely by said politician.Not here to defend Soros but if the actions of the tea party congressmen are to be laid at the Koch's feet, and they do have some responsibility in this, then the answer is at least one.
IMHO That would be silly, the actions of any person are their responsibility alone, if the Koch Brothers wish to bribe..er donate to a particular politician with strings attached it's the politicians responsibility whether he/she takes it or not and what he/she decides to do afterwards.
"A King may move a man, a father may claim a son, but remember that even when those who move you be Kings, or men of power, your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus." Or that, "Virtue was not convenient at the time." This will not suffice. Remember that. " -- King Baldwin IV, Kingdom of Heaven
In our greedy nation it is easy to find people who will do anything for money, if a gangster hires a hit man is he blameless when the hit man blows someone's head off?
Nobody said anything about "blameless", however the billionaire can't be held accountable for the actions of his pet politicians, since said billionaire simply exerts influence through his/her donations. Don't get me wrong though I think the whole exercise of influence peddling by those controlling the levers of state power is completely immoral but as I said each person is wholly responsible for his/her own actions in this context.If a billionaire has pet politicians is he blameless if the pets do what they are told?