Politics, law or both?

LITTLE ROCK — AT LEAST since de Tocqueville, that most perceptive observer of things American, it’s been noted that political issues in this country have a way of becoming legal ones and vice versa. We’ve also learned, like many a lawyer, not to predict how a judge will decide a case.

All that being said, it’s not easy to distinguish the politics from the law in this latest lawsuit being talked up by the state’s Republican Party and its candidate for governor, Jim Keet.

The subject: personal use of statesupplied vehicles by elected officials, all of whom happen to be Democrats. The issue: Doesn’t the state’s constitution (Amendment 70) forbid constitutional officers from receiving any income from the state besides their salaries? And isn’t the personal use of a state car income, especially if those officers pay income tax on it?

But haven’t those cars long been considered just another expense paid for by the public? Although the more conscientious officials-like Governor Mike Beebe when he was attorney general-made a point of paying taxes on the use of his car, as he would income.

Query: Is income always income? Benefits that the feds may call income and therefore taxable may not be the same as the kind of income prohibited by a state constitution. State and federal law may overlap but they don’t necessarily cohere, as anyone who’s had to fill out both state and federal income tax returns may have noticed.

Ah, the joys of states’ rights, which is now called federalism. There are many advantages to such a constitutional system, but simplicity is not one of them. Whether income is income may depend on which jurisdiction, state or federal, is defining it at the time.

Such questions can safely be left to the courts, but this much is clear: What we have here is a political issue cast in litigious form, as so many are.

Besides, it ill behooves a candidatefor governor whose own spotty record of paying taxes has been much in the news of late-that is, Jim Keet-to be casting stones at his opponent for paying his.

When it comes to discussing this issue, Jim Keet’s language was not the most measured. As when he threw out this flashy metaphor: “If a bank robber takes money and then pays taxes on it, the original crime should not be excused.”

Oh, dear. Temperate and judicious, this kind of remark isn’t. Surely the Republican candidate for governor could have made his point without sounding like some over-heated pol throwing around references to crime and bank robbers.

This kind of thing just does not become a candidate for the state’s highest office-or preserve his own dignity. There is a tone the people of Arkansas, however populist we may be, still expect from a governor-however many demagogues have held the governor’s office in our history, from Jeff Davis to Orval Faubus. We expected more from Jim Keet, who once upon a time was a pretty fair state senator. Ranting and raving and filing lawsuits is not a step up.

This is not the Jim Keet we remember. Can he have stayed out in the sun too long when he went off to Florida for a while? He used to be such a nice guy.

Whatever the legalities, Mike Beebe has tried to do right, he’s paid his taxes, and for that he gets compared to a bank robber. That seems more than unfair; it’s a little screwy.

Here’s a simple question and a guide to the perplexed that can cut through a lot of the legal and political murk that has a way of befogging every political campaign:

Which candidate has raised the level of public discourse?

On this legal/political issue, it certainly isn’t Jim Keet.