It became abundantly clear this week - if it hadn't been evident already - that Brandi Swindell is an activist for hire.

And you know what? That's fine by me. As long as everyone knows the rules and can judge her actions accordingly.

Unless you've been hiking in the Sawtooths - or recharging at some other quiet spot far from the IdahoStatesman.com comment pages - you already know Swindell was detained twice by Chinese authorities at Tiananmen Square. The Boisean was among a group of demonstrators protesting religious persecution and human rights violations in China.

As we reported Thursday, the National Clergy Council paid Swindell's way.

Swindell has a unique ability to polarize, and this latest installment in her story doesn't disappoint. And folks on both camps see exactly what they sought to see.

Her supporters see a committed champion with the guts to speak out against an oppressive Chinese regime. I'm not unsympathetic to that viewpoint. Given China's human rights record, I wasn't thrilled seven years ago when Beijing was awarded the 2008 Summer Olympics. I shed no tears, with the Olympics preparing to open, as a handful of activists called attention to that same human rights record.

The timing of the protests dovetails into one of the critics' big points.

They see Swindell as a publicity-hungry opportunist who has once again found a way to manipulate media attention. As a journalist, I like to think I have a pretty good instinct for media hounds - and Swindell's penchant for working the media approaches her knack for dividing popular opinion.

The cynical view is that Swindell went to Beijing to protest the shortage of TV cameras in Boise. Cynical, yes, but also naive.

Yes, this protest was orchestrated for a time when the eyes of the world were turning to Beijing, and reporters, on the eve of the Games, were looking for a story. This was calculated for maximum effect, maximum exposure. As my 13-year-old would say, "Duh."

Folks, this is how the process of public activism is played. Timing matters almost as much as message - the pros pay attention to both. Am I supposed to be surprised?

The critics also juxtaposed Swindell's trip to China against her very public complaints over having to pay the city of Boise for legal fees stemming from the Ten Commandments Monument dispute.

On this point Swindell loses credibility. Remember back in June, when Swindell criticized City Hall for seeking to wring a share of a $10,000 bill from a single woman running a non-profit organization? This was a silly point at the time. Now it's absolutely laughable. It proves once again that City Hall was right to stick to its guns and insist upon collecting legal fees, rather than caving to Swindell's complaints and sticking taxpayers with the bill.

Instead, what happened was perfectly fair under the rules of activism in a free-market economy. Swindell and fellow activist Bryan Fischer raised the money to cover their legal fees - just like Swindell went to China on another group's nickel to protest. I have no problem with either. Just be upfront about it. Spare us the woebegone single woman shtick.

This is a business relationship between Swindell and people who donate to her causes. If the donors feel like they're getting their money's worth, fine. It's not my money, not my place to gripe.

And it's surely not my place to begrudge anyone who pays someone to speak up for their causes. It's no different than an environmental group - supported by memberships and donations - that hires staff to stage press conferences or write guest opinions supporting wilderness or dam breaching.

Taking the argument a step further, an editorial page editor is a paid advocate. I write opinions advancing the Statesman's editorial positions on matters of public policy - a form of advocacy. I also fight and lobby for open government. All the while, I am an employee of a publicly traded newspaper company, working for a paper supported by local and national advertisers and by subscribers.

I can't pretend I have a problem with paid advocacy - as long as it's transparent.

I wish last week's staged events had encouraged deeper discussion of China's human rights record. I'm guilty here as well, having dispatched this topic in a quick paragraph.

Much of the discussion has instead been about Brandi Swindell, consistent with her ability to make herself controversial.

So we now are reminded that Swindell is not just a local activist, but one who works on behalf of a broader network of advocates. I find this neither shocking nor troubling.

Kevin Richert: 377-6437