WASHINGTON – Should Brad Ellsworth return the $12,000 he received in past elections from Charles Rangel, who now is accused by the House ethics committee of a series of financial misdeeds?

Should Dan Coats give back the $1,250 that one of the Wyly brothers donated to the Coats campaign in the ’90s now that Sam and Charles Wyly are accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of a fraudulent insider-trading scheme?

If political money from accused, suspected or acknowledged naughty donors is tainted, does the stink dissipate after a decade and a half?

Yes? Then how about this: Should Marlin Stutzman send back the $500 campaign donation he got from Mark Souder last spring, shortly before Souder resigned in disgrace?

Are we getting a bit too silly?

Silliness is the stock-and-trade of some folks in the political business, and it’s plenty apparent as campaigns and national party organizations call on candidates to disavow contributions they received from donors who have since developed an unsavory patina.

A spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee said if Ellsworth, now vying with Coats for the Indiana Senate seat, didn’t give the money back, it was proof that he was standing by Rangel.

“Actions speak louder than words,” Brian Walsh said, “and Brad Ellsworth’s decision to condone unethical behavior in Congress speaks volumes.”

Um, Brian – what about the $750,000 the National Republican Congressional Committee accepted from then-Rep. (now inmate) Randy “Duke” Cunningham? Or the $340,000 the committee got from then-Rep. Mark Foley? Does money like that mean the NRCC condones bribery? Stands by a congressman whose e-mails clearly showed he preyed on House pages?

That’s stupid. But it is not one-party stupidity. The Democrats have a far-fetched idea that Coats is tainted by association because Charles Wyly sent Coats $1,000 in 1992 and $250 in 1995. It’s a ridiculous contention on many levels: Coats has many talents, but predicting an SEC allegation 18 years into the future is not one of them. Besides, what money would he give back? By the time Coats wound down his Senate campaign account before retiring in 1998, he had given away all the remaining money, primarily to other candidates and $400,000 to the national Republican Party.

Under the Democrats’ logic, Coats would have to take money from donors who have contributed to this year’s campaign and send it back to Charles Wyly, who gave money for Coats’ 1992 re-election campaign.

That contorted logic didn’t stop the Democrats from calling on recipients of Wyly cash to “stand up for what’s right by returning this tainted campaign cash.” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Ryan Rudominer called it “dirty money.”

This is so fanciful that the executive director of the Washington organization that’s always quickest to jump on whiffs of scandal and demand accountability rolled her eyes. “It’s a stupid issue,” said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The only time it makes sense to demand a politician refund donations is when the cash was stolen, she said.

But this is politics, and perception is far more potent than logic.

“Politicians tend to be very practical,” said Jan Baran, an election law attorney who often advises Republicans. Because of donation limits, the money is never a huge amount, and it’s cheaper to give it back or send it to a charity than to counter claims of dirt-by-association launched by the opposing candidate or surrogate.

Thus, the day after the House ethics committee announced there’s reason to believe that Rangel violated House rules or broke the law, Ellsworth sent $12,000 to charity.

Any likelihood the national party organizations will follow suit and return or pass on to charity the cash they received from donors who eventually were indicted or convicted?

Not a chance.

“The committees aren’t on the ballot,” Baran said. They’re not going to be put out of business because of some guilt-by-association allegation.

The national party organizations lob their asinine demands to “return the tainted cash” but absolve themselves from any need to do so. They do not embrace the policy of shedding “tainted” donations. They just want to splash mud. Voters shouldn’t be fooled.