political donations and a sitting president are apples to oranges. One is the failed head of a failed party. The other is one of many large donors to a party...and frankly ones that have had minimal impact on the party direction as they are libertarian/constitution-loving individuals while the party slides further down the big government, big business, authoritarian slope.
Do you want Dems trying to tie a Republican (if he wins the presidency in 2016) to locally elected people, be it races for locally elected House seats or Senate seats?
The tactic itself is what is being dealt with here...
Do you want any attempt to nationalize anyone with another person to continue, be it Dems or Repubs engaging in this tactic?