Matthew Continetti, a friend of mine, has an article in the Standard on his financial ethics. It’s a good read, like everything Matt does. But the article reminds me that I’ve never quite understood the principal charge against Reed: that he took gambling money to campaign against the expansion of casinos. What’s so terrible about that? I’m not opposed to casinos in principle. But if I were, and I were trying to oppose their expansion, I would think it tacitcally smart to recruit existing gambling enterprises afraid of competition to my side. I would see it as a way of dividing my natural opponents. In this case, Reed says that he did not know that he was indirectly representing gambling interests. If it turns out that he did know, then his honesty is in question. But I don’t quite see the underlying offense here.