HuffPo: John Edwards Indicted: Charged With Conspiracy, Campaign Finance Violations By Federal Grand Jury

[Larry]

Lots more at link.

RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- A federal grand jury indicted two-time presidential candidate John Edwards on Friday over $925,000 spent to keep his mistress and their baby in hiding during the peak of his 2008 campaign for the White House.

The case of USA v. Johnny Reid Edwards contains six counts, including conspiracy, four counts of illegal campaign contributions and one count of false statements.

Former campaign staffer Andrew Young, who initially claimed paternity of Hunter's child, has said Edwards was aware of the private financial support that helped keep the mistress satisfied and secluded. Prosecutors believe the private gifts should have been considered campaign contributions since they aided his candidacy.

The case opens a new front in how the federal government oversees the flow of money around political campaigns. An attorney for Edwards said last week that the government's case was "novel and untested" and argued that the government's theory was wrong on both the facts and the law.

Now, am I understanding correctly, that the government is claiming that paying money to a mistress, to keep her quiet, should have been considered a campaign contribution?

[zoony]

I always thought this guy was a weasel, well before the affair broke. See, everyone should listen to me more, I'm always right.

That said, I'm not quite sure I get that the government has a case. If an admirer of yours wants to give you money so you can keep a mistress in hiding, what business is that of the Federal Government? I don't see how they can require that it be a campaign donation.

Did it help his campaign? Sure. It also helped his private life. It also helped the mistress, and the child. The government's case sounds like BS.

[DieselPwr44]

"ErrrAA John...ErrAA...You're doing it all wrong!!"

[Predicto]

No surprise here. Snake Oil Salesman. Like zoony, I expressed my doubts about him from the start. But I'm a liberal, so I get extra credit.

Anyhow, it is an interesting theory. I'll be interested to see how it pans out.

[BeachSkin]

I always admired Edwards...a poor boy who made good. He was a champion for the poor and wanted attention given to the poverty problem rather than continuing to throw wasteful money at it every now and then.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Hey...I think this could be the first felon I ever voted for.

I was a reasonably big Edwards' supporter in '04. I thought he was the only candidate who talked seriously about poverty.

As for the indictment, I think the theory is the same thing as failing to declare illegal income for taxes. If income is income from any source derived, wouldn't a campaign contribution be anything that benefits a campaign?

I'm no expert on campaign finance laws, but this doesn't sound unreasonable.

[SnyderShrugged]

I agree with Zoony and Predicto, its a bit confusing. (I always thought Edwards was a plastic doll myself)

[Larry]

As for the indictment' date=' I think the theory is the same thing as failing to declare illegal income for taxes. If income is income from any source derived, wouldn't a campaign contribution be anything that benefits a campaign?

I'm no expert on campaign finance laws, but this doesn't sound unreasonable.[/quote']

Yeah, I do understand, for example, that the campaign finance laws contain language that says that some things are considered campaign contributions, even if they don't involve actually handing cash to the campaign treasurer.

If, say, My newspaper decides to run a full page ad endorsing a candidate, then that's a campaign contribution, in the amount of whatever the price would have been for somebody else to run that ad. (In fact, as I understand it, there are special rules for the media. They're not only required to account charge for every ad they run, they're required to charge their highest possible rate for it.)

Similarly, if I print up a bunch of campaign signs and scatter them all over the place, or print up a bunch of flyers and mail them out, then that's a contribution, even though I didn't actually give any actual money to the campaign.

I would assume that the law is intentionally broad. Say I'm a supporter of Spock for President, and I discover that Spock has a staff of three housekeepers, none of whom actually has a green card. I certainly assume that if I pay an immigration lawyer (or find one that's willing to work for free, cause he's a Spock supporter, too) who can get the three green cards, then that counts as a contribution.

In short, I assume that the thing here is how far away from the candidate does something have to be, for it to not count as a contribution?

[Burgold]

I know that if you run a not for profit and someone gives you a grant, the grant has to be steered towards the elements in listed in the proposal you sent. You can't just put that money to use however you deem best. More, the person donating it can specifically say, I want my donated money to be used for X and not Y. There's more freedom with general donations, but every penny needs to be accounted for and used for the business of the not for profit and not for one's personal benefit.

If campaigns are run as not for profits (and I think they are) then Edwards may be deservedly skunked.

Then again, my knowledge of the law on this isn't very deep.

[thebluefood]

This guy is the worst kind of scum. Even worse than Newt Gingrich.

[deejaydana]

I know it's dependent upon timing---when exactly that child was conceived---but was Edwards dilusional on the level that he thought he could attain the title of CIC and still keep that story buried?

[Predicto]

I can see why Holder is going after Edwards here. You have to report campaign contributions, presumably so we can know who is buying influence with our politicians. So, if someone gives Edwards a ton of money to cover up a scandal on the campaign trail, he or she is buying influence with Edwards in exactly the same way.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 03:15 PM ----------

I know it's dependent upon timing---when exactly that child was conceived---but was Edwards dilusional on the level that he thought he could attain the title of CIC and still keep that story buried?

[aREDSKIN]

I always thought this guy was a weasel, well before the affair broke. See, everyone should listen to me more, I'm always right.

That said, I'm not quite sure I get that the government has a case. If an admirer of yours wants to give you money so you can keep a mistress in hiding, what business is that of the Federal Government? I don't see how they can require that it be a campaign donation.

Did it help his campaign? Sure. It also helped his private life. It also helped the mistress, and the child. The government's case sounds like BS.

Anything that HELPS a campaign is a campaign contribution and by your post and many others take it did help his campaign.. You answered your own question.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I was originally an Edwards supporter. :doh:

[Mad Mike]

I always thought this guy was a weasel, well before the affair broke. See, everyone should listen to me more, I'm always right.

Sometimes it seems like we *are* the same person. I was the same way and I said it often. That phony Ken doll smile was a dead giveaway.

I'll tell you who to watch now... Cam Newton. I'm not saying he's a weasel. But one thing I have learned about people with that kind of smile - They know how to use it. They get away with a lot of **** with it. But eventually it catches up to them.

---------- Post added June-5th-2011 at 04:11 PM ----------

I can see why Holder is going after Edwards here. You have to report campaign contributions, presumably so we can know who is buying influence with our politicians. So, if someone gives Edwards a ton of money to cover up a scandal on the campaign trail, he or she is buying influence with Edwards in exactly the same way.

Buying influence? They've got him by the balls.

[DeaconTheVillain]

As far a politicians go, this guy is as phony as they come.

[deejaydana]

As far a politicians go, this guy is as phony as they come.

Apparently so was his late wife from what I've read. She was sympathetic for a number of reasons but she was also an opportunist.