Lesser of two evils: Would you pick a crook over a political rival?

Despite having been indicted last week for accepting a bribe, Derrick Smith of the Illinois House of Representatives won his party's primary Tuesday in Chicago. The story behind the bribe? Smith was allegedly paid $7,000 in cash to write a letter in support of a state grant for a day care center. This adds to a long list of Illinois lawmakers who have faced corruption charges, including Anazette Collins, George Ryan, and Rod Blagojevich.

Smith faces up to ten years in prison should he be convicted.

In spite of his alleged crime, Smith had no trouble beating out Democratic rival Tom Swiss, who was once a chairman of the Cook County Republican Party, with 76 percent of the vote. U.S. Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) had rallied Chicagoans to back Smith rather than Swiss in light of the latter's previous involvement with the GOP. In reference to this, Davis said: "There's nothing wrong with being a Republican, except that if people are going to vote for a Republican, they ought to know they’re voting for a Republican."

Although Smith will likely step down from his office before the November general election, the symbolic support of an alleged crook over someone with a clean record who just so happens to have been a Republican is a little troubling. Are we so hostile towards opposing parties that we'd rather a criminal be in office than someone whose politics we disagree with?

Sound off in the comments section to answer these age-old questions: How much importance do you place on a politician's character? Can you still generally trust a politician whose character has come into question to govern properly? Is there a "corruption threshold" at which you would no longer be able to vote for a politician, even if they shared your political beliefs?