I can see this is an argument made in bad faith, as I simply don't see any other way a statement made in the context of not looking too closely at the politics of donors has turned into the accusations you are making now.

But still, I happen to quite enjoy pointless sophistry and I am no stranger to hyperbolic comparisons, so: Wouldn't the logical conclusion of your line of argument be that criminals and reprehensible individuals should be tax exempt, in order to avoid making the government evil by association?

It's not an advert made in bad faith. It's a simple question.

Where do you draw the line? Whose money would you *not* take?