[Brandon]

I hope Murray loses, but I can't help feeling a little bit of agreement with her on this. So many big time lobbyists try to play both sides of the street, but contributing to opposing candidates -- it's perfectly obvious that they aren't making donations on principle; they're just trying to buy influence with whoever wins. I'd actually like to see more politicians take the stand Murray does here: anyone who contributes both to me and to my opponent should not expect to have their phone calls returned if I win, because my vote is not for sale!

It reminds me of the old joke, where the judge in a criminal trial gavels the opening session to order, and announces: The Court would like to announce that I have received a $500 bribe from the prosecutor and a $600 bribe from the defense counsel. I am now returning $100 to the defense counsel, and will try the case on its merits!"

[Revenge Of Daffy-Duck]

"I hope Murray loses, but I can't help feeling a
little bit of agreement with her on this...I'd
actually like to see more politicians take the stand
Murray does here: anyone who contributes both to me
and to my opponent should not expect to have their
phone calls returned if I win, because my vote
is not for sale!"

That's a sweet dream, but I that is not what she said.
If you read the article, Murray and her staff "made it clear they would consider giving to Nethercutt a hostile act.” In other words, she basically said "my vote IS for sale and the price is a donation to me plus zero donations to my opponent."

My guess is that you generally assume the best about people. In this case however, you seem to have been carried away by wishful thinking.