BOB Brown is an astute politician. For more than 30 years he has shaped the environmental movement in Tasmania and influenced politics in this state. He had a national profile well before becoming a senator 13 years ago. Bob Brown's achievements are numerous and he is well respected by supporters and detractors for his ability to capture the public's attention. As Australian Greens leader he commands the media spotlight. A story about how he has three weeks to pay almost $240,000 in legal expenses or be out of a job was always going to capture headlines. But surely he was never going to lose his Senate seat. Couldn't he have made a private call to some of the big backers? He's known for over a year that he'd have to pay Forestry Tasmania's legal expenses after the High Court ruled against his bid to stop logging in the Wielangta Forest on the East Coast. Senator Brown did the right thing in not dipping into the Greens' campaign funds to pay for the case. He's protected the party. But like most private citizens who run court cases, he must have known whether he could afford to pursue it, or at least be assured of having financial backing. His detractors point out that his total salary is more than $184,000, plus there's an electorate allowance. No doubt Senator Brown spends much of that helping fund environmental campaigns. But the circumstances surrounding his public plea for money - saying he could lose his job - are odd, to say the least. Sure, Senator Brown has seized an opportunity to have another go at Forestry Tasmania for demanding he pay up (so it can meet its legal expenses). That also galvanises supporters of the environmental movement who paid $600,000 towards the court case over four years. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he's "distressed" by this latest turn of events. But Senator Brown needs to be careful not to tip the balance from public sympathy to scepticism. - FIONA REYNOLDS, editor