In Heat of Campaign, No Forgiveness for Troublemakers

Nov. 5, 2007 — -- Criminal felons have run for office, been elected and been appointed to top government positions.

But in the thick of a high-stakes campaign, they're persona non grata.

Philip Martin, one of Fred Thompson's closest advisers, learned that lesson the hard way today when he resigned after it was revealed that he had a criminal record for drug dealing. Although the Republican presidential candidate said yesterday that he wouldn't "throw my friend under the bus," Martin stepped down in the wake of the revelation, saying, "I deeply regret any embarrassment this has caused."

The businessman, who was one of Thompson's campaign co-chairmen and provided the candidate with more than $120,000 worth of flights on his private plane, pleaded guilty to the sale of 11 pounds of marijuana in 1979 and was charged in 1983 with multiple counts of felony bookmaking, cocaine trafficking and conspiracy, as reported by ABC News' The Blotter.

Since then, Martin seems to have turned his life around, becoming a successful businessman and real estate developer in Tennessee.

But in the thick of a political campaign, there is no redemption for someone with a criminal record, say political observers and analysts.

"In a high-stakes, high-profile campaign, you just can't have any questions lingering like that," said former campaign consultant Kerwin Swint, the author of "Mudslingers: The Top 25 Negative Political Campaign of All Time."

"We've had quite a few candidates and parties that have had ties to people with legal issues, but if they involve drugs, then that's something serious. ... I can't think of anyone who has had such close ties to a criminal felon in recent elections."

Martin is not the only top fundraiser with a criminal history who's gained access to a candidate in this campaign.

In September, Hillary Clinton returned more than $800,000 raised by one of her top contributors, Norman Hsu, after it was revealed that he was convicted of fraud in 1992 for promoting a Ponzi scheme and later becoming a fugitive.

Rudy Giuliani quickly dropped his South Carolina state chairman Thomas Ravenel in April after the fundraiser was indicted on cocaine charges. And two weeks ago, welterweight champion Floyd Mayerweather skipped a campaign event for Barack Obama after questions were raised about the boxer's history of battery convictions and accusations of domestic violence.

Swint notes that there are plenty of historical parallels for such unsavory associations, and that they haven't always hurt presidential campaigns.

One of Lyndon Johnson's close associates was Billy Sol Estes, a fraudster who extorted millions of taxpayer dollars in the early 1960s. Ulysses Grant received campaign contributions from all kinds of unsavory characters and con men, said Swint. And Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996 was marred by illegal contributions from Buddhist nuns and monks.

But in general, most campaigns have no tolerance for embarrassing headlines about crooked advisers or criminal fundraisers. "Politicians can have plenty of loyalty to their advisers except within the context of a campaign," said Allan Lichtman, a political historian at American University. "At the level of a presidential campaign, you presume that the media and opposition is looking for something to use against you. Any negative thing can make a difference."

And this embarrassing revelation could have an impact on Thompson's campaign in an extremely competitive race.

"It is a significant hit to the Thompson campaign," said Joseph Marbach, political science professor at Seton Hall University. "Voters are assessing a candidate's character based on their ability to judge people and their judgment in general. They're looking at characteristics of leadership."

It's especially damaging when the disclosures involve a campaign adviser, who's more involved with the candidate than just a fundraiser. "In general, the closer you are to the campaign itself, the more damaging it is," said Swint.

With fundraisers, there tends to be some deniability because they're not part of the campaign inner circle. "You don't always know who's giving money and there might not be the most rigorous background check," said Marbach. "But when it comes to key advisers, that's much different."