When concerned citizens send e-mails or letters of support and good wishes to Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards' wife, who is battling cancer, they are automatically placed on the her husband's campaign's fundraising list. Presumably, this occurs with Mrs. Edwards' blessing. Is this right?

The practice certainly evokes the "ick factor," at least here at the Scoreboard. Imagine sending a "get well" card to an old friend you havn't seen in years, and discovering that he had taken your name and address off the envelope and given it to the telemarketers for his firm. You would certainly feel as if the relationship had been abused. Your personal communication inspired by the best of motives was used to make you another sales prospect, a target. This isn't fair, respectful, or kind; it is simply exploitive.

Is this what the Edwards' campaign is doing? The vast majority, perhaps all, of the well-wishers sending their "get well" wishes to Elizabeth Edwards are not old friends but relative strangers. Basic fundraising principles dictate that the people who voluntarily contact anyone closely tied to a project, movement, or cause are potential financial supporters, and ought to be contacted. Not contacting them, indeed, is a cardinal sin; it is like throwing money away. Still, principles are based on generalities, and may not apply in specific instances. Someone writing Mrs. Edwards to say how much she admires her hair (or Senator Edwards to say how much she admires his hair): fine; send a fundraising appeal. Not a lot of Republican are going to be doing that. A letter to commend her on a speech or an article: that's a virtual invitation to be put on a fundraising list.

But a note to Elizabeth Edwards acknowledging her courage and offering moral support for her ordeal that was sent by, for example, another cancer patient, or the daughter of a mother who recently died from the disease, or from anyone motivated by something far more important than politics---basic human empathy and kindness---is not an invitation. It is a very personal communication, no less so because the writer may never have met the addressee. Her illness has created a bond and a connection, at least in the heart and mind of the writers. The Edwards campaign, and Mrs. Edwards herself, should be treat such communications with no less respect than a "get well" note from an old friend. They should not be used to swell John Edwards' fundraising list.

They will be, of course. And in the well-tested logic of mass fundraising, the tactic will work: enough of Mrs. Edwards well-wishers will give to the campaign to "prove" that it was the right thing to do. And the sincere cancer patients who feel betrayed that their personal thoughts and concerns for Mrs. Edwards became fundraising tools? Well, sorry.

There's a campaign to run, a race to win.

The Scoreboard can't bring itself to say that what the Edwards campaign is doing is truly unethical. One could argue that anyone who sends something to anyone connected to a presidential campaign should expect such treatment, and that the campaign therefore can't be faulted for meeting those expectations. Perhaps. But the most ethical conduct here would be for the campaign to draw a bright line between those who reach out to Elizabeth Edwards as empathizing human beings because she has cancer, and those who contact the family or the campaign for reasons of policy, politics, whimsy. The most ethical conduct would be for Mrs. Edwards to treat these messages according to the concern, kindness and personal emotion that inspired their sending.

But who expects the most ethical conduct in politics?