If I knew that I was going to be brought up on criminal charges, and I also knew that I’d be appearing before a certain judge, and I gave that judge $5,000 and he or she accepted it, an outside observer might, with good reason, assume that I had attempted to bribe the judge to secure a favorable outcome.

And if, before the trial even occurred, that judge was making favorable comments about the disposition of my case, that observer might reasonably conclude that my “contribution” had reaped dividends.

A judge should never put himself or herself in a position where an outside observer would question his or her impartiality.

State Sen. Mary Jo White, in her most recent letter to the editor (“No Marcellus apologies,” Nov. 26), bemoans the lack of trust shown by anyone who sees a possible link between a $5,000 campaign contribution (legal or not) to her campaign committee by the coal, oil and gas industries and the fact that she chairs the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee.

If White cannot see why anyone thinks that she “might have violated campaign laws,” then perhaps she doesn’t know the aphorism “if you lie with dogs, you wake with fleas.”

I am not saying that White violated any laws, but she certainly put herself in a position where a reasonable person could question her motives.

Politicians, like judges, need to be scrupulous when it comes to who they associate with, if they want people to assume they are impartial stewards of public money. They need to ask themselves, of contributors, “What could they possibly want?”

If White doesn’t want to be accused of impropriety, perhaps she should not accept money from groups that could reap benefits from her actions.

Instead of bemoaning the lack of trust, White should be above reproach.

And for we citizens, another aphorism might be apropos: “Trust, but verify.”

That, I think, was the point made by the letter writer who got under the good senator’s skin.