* For the third time in more than a year, Senator Obama’s presidential campaign announced this week that it was shedding more donations tied to Tony Rezko. The announcement came amidst the Florida primary and didn’t receive much press. Some watchdog groups like the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform have praised the Senator for his decision, but many more are left scratching their heads:

Calculations by the media and Obama’s own staff of Rezko’s financial impact on his past political campaigns have been all over the map and shifting. The reason: The numbers depend on assumptions made about why a donor gave in the first place.

In the latest total, Obama has promised to give to charity more than $150,000 he collected through Rezko. His campaign said the latest installment of $72,650 was raised for his 2004 U.S. Senate race at a dinner at Rezko’s 8,500-square-foot Wilmette mansion. Obama’s campaign still has not offered a clear explanation of how it determines Rezko-linked donations or why he has dealt with them piecemeal, apparently in reaction to bad publicity.

The public records don’t make clear every Rezko connection. The records show that since 1995, $74,500 came from Rezko, his relatives or contributors listed on official disclosure forms as employees of one of his businesses. Rezko has not raised money for Obama’s presidential campaign. Furthermore, different media outlets have reported ranging figures:

The New York Times has pegged Rezko political cash for Obama at $150,000, the Sun-Times at $168,000 and the Los Angeles Times at $200,000. Last weekend, a report by ABCNews.com suggested more than $185,000.

It’s understandable that it is difficult to determine all the donations that have some connection to Rezko in one way or another. For instance, if Rezko holds a fundraiser at his house, do you give away all the donations that were raised there, or just the ones that were given by friends of Rezko? A donor may attend the event that has never even met Rezko, but was brought by a friend of a friend. On top of that, you risk offending donors over the giveaway:

One donor at the event was Michael Sreenan, a former attorney for a Rezko company. Sreenan gave Obama $2,000 that night, but hasn’t heard if the campaign now plans to give it away.

Still, Sreenan said he was baffled by the notion of giving money raised at Rezko’s home to charity. “If [Obama] wants to give my donation back to me or let me give it to a charity, I’m fine with that,” he said. “But I don’t see how this makes a difference now — the money still got him elected. And how do I know it’s not going to a charity that’s offensive to me?”

* What’s more troubling than the giveaway though are the hazy explanations. In a Chicago Tribune column today Eric Zorn highlights some of these statements:

Well, my relationship is [that Tony Rezko] was somebody who I knew and had been a supporter for many years. He was somebody who had supported a wide range of candidates all throughout Illinois. Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems….Barack Obama on CBS “Early Show” Jan. 23

Nobody had any indications that [Rezko] was engaging in wrongdoing….Barack Obama on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jan. 23

Now contrast these claims with some of the headlines that were circulating around the time of the land deal with Rezko:

* 7-18-2004 - Blagojevich adviser tied to appointee; Doctor, fundraiser co-owned condos
* 2/13/2005 - Tollway oasis pact rich with links to governor’s allies;Fundraiser, friend tied to restaurants
* 3/16/2005 - O’Hare vendor called minority front; Top Blagojevich aide owns Panda Express outlets, city charges
* 4/8/2005 - Stroger taps Blagojevich aide; Controversial insider gets fundraiser role
* 5/20/2006 - First lady of Illinois linked to developer

* and the most blatant: 5/26/2005 - Tony Rezko; Top fundraiser, adviser and close friend of Blagojevich faces scrutiny as controversies dog the administration in which he has played a crucial behind-the-scenes role

Now, either it would be an understatement to say that the Senator is being disingenuous about all he knew of Rezko at the time, or he is being honest about how much he knew, and it truly was a “boneheaded mistake.” The latter is a lot harder to swallow. Which ever it is, it still undermines his campaign theme of better judgment. Watch for Hillary to spring this on him again in tonight’s debate, but this time with a sharper edge.