Suppose you discovered your doctor runs a charity on the side. The charity gives away some money. But it spends most of its cash on things that help the doctor — often financially.

How is the charity funded? Contributions from drug companies. They want the doc to prescribe their drugs. Contributions from specialists who want the doc to refer patients to them.

Do you have any problem with this arrangement?

Suppose you own a business. You learn your buyer has a Christmas Fund. The fund gives some money to good causes. But it spends most of its money on salaries for the buyer’s family.

How is the fund financed? Money from suppliers that sell stuff to your company, or would like to. Stuff your buyer decides to buy. Or not.

Does this sound okay to you?

Suppose your local school superintendent has a similar fund. Its money comes from businesses that sell supplies to the school. And from consultants the school district hires. The fund employs relatives of the superintendent.

And suppose several of those suppliers pay your superintendent big bucks — to speak to their business associations. Looks like a lot of quid pro quo to me.

Do you have any problems with this?

Suppose the highway superintendent of your town has a charity on the side. Funded by companies that sell gravel, blacktop, and trucks to your town. They kick in thousands to the charity. The charity doles out money to community groups favored by the superintendent. Especially just before elections.

Does this bother you?

The interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile, made a revealing remark recently. About people sinking money into the Clinton Foundation and then seeking meetings and special treatment from Hillary at the State Department.

This is no big deal, Brazile said. It is normal behavior in Washington. She said of critics, “We often criminalize behavior that is normal. I don’t see what the smoke is.”

Let’s be fair. That thought could just as easily have come from the head of the Republican National Committee.

And that is the problem. Buying influence is normal in Washington. Buying favors is normal. To those who take the money. And dole out the favors. Normal.

What has happened is the opposite of what the chair claimed. Washington politicians have normalized what is criminal behavior. And that disturbs millions of Americans. It makes them want to retch when the subject of Washington politics comes up.

Many in Washington see nothing wrong with this. You pay your money. You get your favors. They see nothing wrong with the Secretary of State’s top assistant drawing a paycheck from the Clintons’ charity. A charity where you pay your money and get your favors. From the Secretary of State.

They see nothing wrong with Bill Clinton asking foreigners right now to contribute to the foundation. Foreigners who may well be seeking favors from his wife if and when she becomes president. Situation normal.

I wonder whether the Clintons would have any problems if the superintendent of Chappaqua schools ran a slush fund.

I wonder too if the highway commissioner would justify his slush fund by saying, “Hey, I am just doing what our leaders in Washington do.”

Some now tell us, “Don’t worry. Yes, this happened at a lower level. But it would never happen in the White House.”

Sorry. It already did. People like Denise Rich poured $450,000 into the Clinton Foundation. And over $1 million to Democratic campaigns. And slept many a night in the White House. And President Bill Clinton then granted a pardon to her ex, Marc Rich.

Rich was a disgusting crook and fugitive. After the pardon, his partners, lawyers, advisers, and friends showered more millions upon the Clintons.

Democrat Congressman Barney Frank called the pardon “Contemptuous.”

So…. Do you have any problem with this stuff?

From Tom…as in Morgan.

Tom Morgan writes about political, financial, and other subjects from his home near Oneonta. Several upstate radio stations carry his daily commentary, Tom Morgan’s Money Talk. Contact him at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com

I’ve been involved in politics for the better part of a lifetime, and have spoken at a lot of public meetings over the years. There’s one question, I think, that I’ve heard more than any other: “If I want to be an informed citizen, which sources of information should I consult?”

For many years, I had a set answer for this. Read one or more of the respected national news sources, I’d respond. I’m not sure how good that answer was at the time, but I know for certain it would be inadequate now.

The Internet and social media have upended our expectations of what it means to be well-informed. Platforms and websites that take advantage of online and mobile connectivity are like a firehose, providing enormous quantities of information, opinion, news, statements, videos, images, analysis, charts, graphs — all of it instantly available.

The question is, what impact does this have on the public dialogue, and on representative democracy?

Clearly, these are powerful tools. As the rise of the Tea Party and the alarm over price increases for the EpiPen demonstrate, they can galvanize large, energetic groups of people who oppose a specific target. They make more information quickly available from more sources. They give citizens multiple ways to engage the attention and interest of policy makers — and give policy makers multiple ways to gauge public opinion and seek to understand the interests and needs of constituents.

But if information has become more ubiquitous and powerful, so has misinformation. It spreads rapidly, passed along from user to user with no check. Posts tend to have no room for nuance; arguments can be explosive and arguers aggressive; drama and hysteria fuel polarization; special interests can’t help but take advantage of the context-free nature of social media.

The key question is: Does the ubiquity of information really help citizens understand complex issues, weigh competing arguments, and reach discriminating judgments about politics?

The answer, of course, is that it’s a mixed bag. Certainly, the information world we live in today is putting more stress on individual voters to make discriminating choices and on our representative democracy, which rests on institutions that were designed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Our political process has proved resilient over centuries, but social media pose a powerful challenge. They’ve brought great gifts and equally great risks, and we’d be prudent to be cautious.

Lee Hamilton is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years, representing a district in south central Indiana.