Is Janet Nguyen trying on the good ol’ boys’ shoes?

In the good old days (remember the 1990s?) when Bob Dornan was an Orange County congressman, it was fun to knock him in print. It was like boxing with a kangaroo -- no matter how hard or often you hit him, you could never put him down. The raspy-voiced redhead not only seemed to enjoy the combat, but he was indefatigable.

And if indefatigable means colorful and sharp-witted, he was that, too.

To a lesser degree, it was the same with some other public figures. Supervisors and sheriffs, councilmen or clergymen -- from time to time, they all provided excellent column fodder. And since Orange County tended to be classic good-ol’-boy territory, the targets of scorn or scolding tended to be men.

Today, I’m not having nearly as much fun.

Newly minted Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen has told her attorney to return money that she solicited to help pay down the sizable debt she incurred from the post-election recount and trial that eventually handed her a three-vote victory. As The Times’ Christian Berthelsen reported last week, those solicitations appear to violate county finance law that specifies that donations for legal expenses count as campaign contributions. As such, donors are limited to a maximum of $1,600. She told Berthelsen that three people, whom she didn’t identify, gave more than the $1,600.

The donations were made out to a client trust fund of her attorney, Phillip Greer. Nguyen says Greer told her that was an acceptable way to raise money for the debt but later had second thoughts. At that point, Nguyen says, she told him to return the donations.

Greer told me Monday that Nguyen’s version of events is correct.

I’m not thrilled to dive into this, because I met Nguyen on election night in February and enjoyed her company and that of her inner circle. I haven’t been her advocate, other than to predict that first night -- even without knowing whether she’d won or lost the election -- that she had a bright future in politics.

I have to say, however, that her debt-reduction approach leaves much to be desired. For starters, directing money to a nondescript client fund sounds like a pretty obvious dodge. At minimum, it raises suspicions why Greer would first think it permissible but then have a change of heart.

From Nguyen’s standpoint, even if she were merely accepting her lawyer’s advice, a bell should have sounded about asking people for contributions in excess of normal campaign contributions. The fact that some apparently exceeded those levels only drives the point home deeper that an officeholder might be overly beholden to whoever ponied up big-time.

Nor is it an especially good sign that Nguyen won’t say who the over-the-top donors were.

When we talked late Monday afternoon, Nguyen was neither contrite nor defensive. She argues, with persuasiveness, that she wouldn’t have sent out a “flurry of mass public e-mails” seeking the donations if she were trying to hide anything. She says the frenzied atmosphere of the dead-heat election, recount and legal challenge by her opponent led to quick decisions.

She says she was assured the solicitations weren’t subject to campaign reporting laws. Once Greer advised her of a potential problem, she says, she took the “conservative” approach and reversed field.

I’m not looking for Nguyen’s head here. For one thing, I still like many things about her personal story and what I hope she can bring to public office. And the meter for her legal bills clearly was running and probably still is.

But it troubles me that she doesn’t acknowledge the inherent problem of directing money to an off-the-books account. Theoretically, a single “donor” could have written a check for $100,000 and paid her entire debt. That would raise the obvious question of that person’s future access to her.

Nguyen says she realizes she’ll be under scrutiny but attributes that to the publicity she got as the first Vietnamese American supervisor, the closeness of the election and its contentiousness.

This isn’t about being under a microscope. It’s about basic campaign finance and the public’s perception of elected officials. Not to put too fine a point on things, but it’s a big reason there are campaign finance limits.

“In order to help with the legal battle,” Nguyen says, “I had to fight the recount, I had to ask for help. Any candidate would ask for help.”

To borrow a phrase, it’s all in how you ask.

This is a woman, I still think, of intelligence and commitment.

I was hoping Monday for a bit more contrition. In that vein, I asked if there were lessons learned.

“There’s always a lesson learned,” she says, “including in my own election and the recount process. Every day there’s a lesson learned.”

*

Dana Parsons can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at [email protected]. An archive of his recent columns is at www.latimes.com/parsons.