CAMPAIGN CASH When does a donation become unacceptable? BY MARY ANN SORRENTINO

US Senate candidate Matt Brown has returned his first campaign contribution — a $250 check sent back to Ralph Pari, who was the head of the Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation until he resigned 17 years ago. Pari served 16 months in prison after being found guilty of tax evasion and destroying records for some RIHMFC loans made under his watch.

Ralph Pari, now in his mid-70s, still works as a housing consultant to a number of municipalities across the country. He collaborates with federal agencies as well. This is because Ralph Pari is very good at what he does. What he does is real estate.

I have been proud to know the Pari family all my life. To me, Brown’s action raises a serious question for any candidate who wants to be a lawmaker: when is a debt to society repaid, and how long should someone be punished for a white-collar crime?

Despite the scandal, RIHMFC was a model among such agencies nationwide. Many lawmakers and real estate professionals still say (privately, if not publicly) that the agency was never better run than it was under Pari. While Pari is ostracized, the politicians and bigwigs who received special RIHMFC treatment are still sought after by candidates.

At his sentencing, Pari was ordered, in addition to prison time, to pay $8000 in fines and perform 500 hours of community service once released. He did all that and continues to perform community service. Many charities could speak on his behalf if asked. He supports religious as well as secular causes, so one might say his money is good enough for God, if not for a political candidate.

Asked why Pari’s check was sent back, Brown campaign spokesman Matt Burgess says, "Matt Brown stands for open government." Previously, Burgess told the Providence Journal that Brown deplored "impropriety in government."

If avoiding "insiders" is an issue, I wonder why I have seen Brown and other candidates from both parties schmoozing with elected officials whose behavior, while not deemed criminal, might make Pari look like an amateur. During Buddy Cianci’s second reign, between indictments, didn’t they all scramble for his blessing and Providence’s votes?

Burgess defines impropriety as taking money from insiders, so schmoozing is apparently one thing, and accepting a campaign contribution something else.

Mr. Brown has every right to take or reject money from anyone he wishes, but if there is a moral standard to be applied to his supporters, then voters deserve to know what that standard is.

I asked Brown if, when he is on the campaign trail in a high-crime area, does he intend to ask any ex-cons who might be in the audience not to support him?

Silence.

I asked, should candidates reject contributions from any labor leaders or unions with illegal dealings or indictments in the past?

More silence.

If a question is raised about a contribution like Pari’s, I might respond that Pari is a voter who has the right to offer support to the candidate of his choice. The candidate can, if s/he wishes, accept the support of anyone whose money is not ill-gotten. Ralph Pari may not be perfect, but he is not a hardened criminal, and he was a wealthy man long before RIHMFC.

Brown and other candidates ought to set a uniform standard regarding those whose support — financial or political — they deem acceptable amid the torrents of campaign cash.

The $250 sent back to Ralph Pari may cost Brown much more. It should certainly focus our attention on every candidate’s roster of supporters: those found guilty of abuse of power and those who should be.