THERE’S NOTHING new about senior National Guard officials hitting up subordinates to bankroll a campaign for adjutant general; as far back as 1978, a chaplain got caught sending out fund-raising letters for then-candidate Eston Marchant that said donating “is not optional” for those who “intend to stay until retirement.” Similar, although usually less directly threatening, abuses have been reported time after time.

What’s new is that we now know what can happen to guardsmen who refuse to play ball or, worse, blow the whistle on these inappropriate activities.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Army Inspector General found that a top Guard official retaliated with a career-crippling reprimand against an officer who complained that his supervisor had pressured him to donate to Adjutant General Stan Spears’ 2002 re-election campaign. Maj. Dennis Enloe had made his complaint to the Army Inspector General, the State Ethics Commission and The Charlotte Observer. The investigation concluded that Brig. Gen. Harry Burchstead, an assistant commander of the Guard who has been actively involved in Spears fund-raising efforts, “would not have taken the adverse action” had Maj. Enloe not made the complaints.

The investigation also found that the Guard leadership focused so much on getting back at Maj. Enloe that it “failed to investigate the underlying allegation” by Maj. Enloe that another Guard official made campaign contributions in exchange for a government contract. (Officials did investigate and substantiate his complaints about being pressured to give money, but gave the offending officers a slap on the wrist.)

Top Guard officials have always insisted that there is no connection between campaign actions and military actions. We can’t conclude, based on a single incident, that there is a widespread practice of retaliating against officers who don’t support the incumbent. But many officers already believe that they have to make campaign donations in order to get the assignments that will lead to promotions. This gross act of political retaliation against a whistle-blower is certain to strengthen that belief. Gen. Spears needs to take serious disciplinary action against Gen. Burchstead, to send a clear message to all guardsmen that their political loyalty is not a requirement for success in the Guard.

But the problem is much larger than Gen. Burchstead or Gen. Spears. The problem is that our state requires those who want to lead our military to win a political campaign — and that requires a huge amount of fund-raising. Unless we prohibit Guard members and their families from donating to those campaigns, there is simply no way to avoid at least the perception that rewards will be given to the winner’s political friends and punishments given to political foes.

Supporters of our unique system of electing the military leader sometimes argue that there is nothing wrong with an elected official giving the best jobs to political supporters; they point to governors and other elected officials who bring their campaign staffs to work when they get elected, and appoint donors to important government posts.

What they forget is that in our country, we go to great lengths to ensure that our military leadership is based on merit, not on politics. They forget this essential principle because our system of electing the adjutant general encourages them to do so — and that will inevitably lead to incompetent commanders who put the lives of our citizen-soldiers in danger.