Outside of showing a political alignment it's much to do about nothing. Those guys have been contributing to republican candidates for years so to even suggest they are doing so to "vote" buy is absurd. That's almost as crazy as the other day on another blog someone posting an article and wanting to know if Sekulow had done any work in the office of his non exempt tax organization vs his tax exempt office of the organizations he heads. One only has to look at the ACLU's page that makes the claim the ACLU Foundation and the ACLU work often overlap....despite the claim they have to be careful separating the activities of each organization just what does the claim "overlap" mean?....did any of them throughout the years ever so much as discuss the other sides business in the same office?...I dare say they have. What's the chances that has never happened? I'd find it rather hard to believe that one attorney said to the other "we have to step outside to discuss this". Figuring out political alliances can be important in the regard to showing bias, as such with the whistle blower, that was crucial in this case as it went far further then just voting democrat or giving a donation, but to come out and suggest vote buying or insinuating bribery as you just done by people who have a record of donating to republican candidates is downright slander on your part.