A campaign manager and a merit source are an inherent conflict of interest.
Not more than any campaign participant if we follow this logic... Any source could merit bomb a manager in exchange of a good campaign position/payrate.
If someone is trustable and own all required qualities to be source, manager or not is not important IMO. A positive thing with a manager is that we know he won't risk his reputation/business here for some merits donations
Not the same at all..
Any campaign manager could merit 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 people. Do it for a month. Then let them join as heroes getting them higher fees.
It is an inherent conflict of interest.
I do not know the status of the 109 merit sources. I am not sure any are campaign managers. But it does not change the fact that no campaign manager should ever be a merit source.
As for a signature person giving tons of merits to a campaign manager. It is visible if they do.
The difference is clear.
A campaign manager will know he is giving to 5 accounts that he can add at will in the future. Along with 5 or 10 others that he does not care just to throw you off.
A signature guy can give 50 merits to a campaign manager and ask in a month but it would be obvious to see they did it as they would be giving to an active person.
While a campaign manager giving to 15 people knowing he will add 5 down the road can hide what he is doing.
If I funded a campaign I would insist that the manager does not give merits to anyone that is not a legend as it would protect me from over paying.
So if Icopress says he will only give merits to legends his source would be pure.
Same for any other campaign manger.