Pundits are jumping all over Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. because of this:

Blagojevich made an appearance at an Oct. 31 luncheon meeting at the India House restaurant in Schaumburg sponsored by Oak Brook businessman Raghuveer Nayak, a major Blagojevich supporter who also has fundraising and business ties to the Jackson family, according to several attendees and public records...

That meeting led to a Blagojevich fundraiser Saturday in Elmhurst, co-sponsored by Nayak and attended by Jesse Jackson Jr.'s brother, Jonathan, as well as Blagojevich, according to several people who were there. Nayak and Jonathan Jackson go back years and the two even went into business together years ago as part of a land purchase on the South Side.

For sake of argument, let's put aside any possible excuses and stipulate to the "worst" case - that JJJ directly asked his richest friends to donate to Blago's campaign so Blago would appoint JJJ to the Senate.

I'm no fan of our corrupt campaign finance system - but how exactly is the JJJ-Blago deal different from other political fundraising deals that are completely routine?

Every day Congress is in session, some corporate lobbyist hosts a fundraiser for lawmakers who support a special-interest bill for that corporation, and that corporation's executives show up and write the checks. How exactly is that different from the JJJ-Blago deal?

Here's another example: when Hillary Clinton dropped out and endorsed Barack Obama, it was widely reported that Obama promised to help her retire $20 million in debts by tapping his vast fundraising machine. No one raised an eyebrow over that alleged deal - in fact Obama was criticized in the New York press for failing to act on the deal quickly enough. How exactly is that different from the JJJ-Blago deal?

Our non-public campaign finance system runs on private donors. Some donors want nothing but good government for their money, but many want favors - legislation, jobs, endorsements, etc. Even in its worst light, the JJJ-Blago deal is entirely within the rules of our current system. And every single pundit knows it.

So why is JJJ being scapegoated?

Update 1: Politico just reported how Microsoft gave $9K to Republican incumbents before they lost, then gave $4K to the Democrats who beat them.

“Our philosophy around political giving is based on helping candidates, primarily incumbent candidates, who work toward policies that are important to Microsoft and the tech industry,” said Ginny Terzano, a Microsoft spokeswoman. “The fact of the matter is, that candidate won.”

Duh. Did Microsoft commit a crime?

In going with the winner — even after supporting the loser — Microsoft is hardly alone. Some of the biggest corporate names in the Washington influence game backed Republican incumbents before the 2008 elections, only to donate to their Democratic vanquishers afterward.

AT&T, the American Association for Justice (the trial lawyers’ political action committee), the American Bankers Association, the American Hospital Association, Bank of America, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Credit Union National Association, General Electric, the lobbying and law firm Holland & Knight, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the National Multi Housing Council, Northwest Airlines, Qwest Corp., Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America and U.S. Telecom are among those who have donated to victorious Democratic challengers since the election results were official.

Did all of these corporations commit crimes? 

The biggest corporate and association PACs are constantly hit up for donations by members and senators in both parties as they seek financial backing for ever more expensive campaigns. The organizations respond by showering incumbents and hopefuls with millions in campaign donations, targeting in particular powerful party leaders and committee chairmen.

These are the unwritten rules of our privately-funded campaigns. Everyone knows the rules and everyone plays by them. If JJJ committed a crime, then so did every single fundraiser or donor who made a campaign contribution to directly or indirectly get a quo for their quid.