As I wrote before the federal trial of John Edwards on campaign finance violation charges began, the former Democratic senator, vice presidential and presidential candidate is an easy person to dislike. No doubt many, if not most Americans, think a federal prison camp is too easy a punishment for a pompous, vain gasbag who publicly cheated on a much-admired wife while she was dying of cancer. But being a loathsome scoundrel is not a federal offense. Then again neither are the deeds for which federal prosecutors seek to have him jailed.
This truth was brought home today in court when the judge ruled the defense couldn’t present as a witness a former head of the Federal Elections Commission who was prepared to testify that Edwards’s actions that are alleged by the government to be crimes, were, in fact, not violations of the law. In spite of the inexplicable decision to exclude that rather pertinent piece of evidence, the defense was able to present the testimony of the chief financial officer of his campaign, who pointed out that the FEC actually approved the records submitted by his 2008 presidential effort. That renders the prosecutors’ attempt to claim the failure to report the money a prominent supporter donated to help cover up his affair was a crime a legal absurdity. The day’s events make it more clear than ever what is going on in this case is not just a typical example of prosecutorial overreach in which the government seeks to make an example of an unpopular rich person. Rather, it is an unprincipled and dangerous attempt to extend the reach of an already ambiguous set of laws in order to criminalize campaign donations.
The government seems to think that by treating any money spent on behalf of a presidential candidate as a reportable donation it can establish a broad legal precedent. Though few would weep if Edwards were jailed because of the money spent to hush up his tawdry personal scandals, if this is a crime, then virtually anything done with or on behalf of a candidate even if it is not spent on campaign expenses can be treated as a donation and therefore be regulated. Were the courts to let them get away with this sleight of hand legal maneuver, it would be a huge power grab on the part of the federal government. It would give U.S. attorneys and their masters at the Justice Department the ability to trump up prosecutions against any politician they didn’t like, including those who are not quite as hard to like as John Edwards.
This cannot be allowed to happen. What is going on in that courtroom is nothing less than a show trial with potentially dangerous consequences for not only politicians but also the free speech rights of Americans to express political opinions that are financed by contributions. We already knew the movement to enact increasingly onerous and confusing campaign finance laws was a blight on our democracy. But the effort to criminalize John Edwards’s peccadilloes is particularly perilous for the future of fair elections.
Unfortunately, the trial judge in this case may have bought into the elastic logic that is the foundation of the government’s case. We can only hope that even if the jury in this case is blind to the prosecution’s misconduct here that an appeals court will eventually point out that what is going on in North Carolina is a travesty of justice.
I am so happy to see someone write this! n nThis is just another effort to be able to put anyone in jail for anything. I have seen this in other places that the price of losing an election is a prosecution for problems with campaign laws. Bad behavior is not always criminal behavior and I have no love for Edwards.
The purpose of the gift however was to elect John Edwards POTUS by keeping Ms. Hunter silent–a campaign contribution if there ever was one. This was not a genuine gift to either Ms. Hunter or to John Edwards but a campaign contribution subject to both limits and reporting requirements. That's the reason the indictment of Edwards was genuine and in good faith and since Democ-rats believe in both campaign finance laws and the gift and death tax (they are tied together in the Internal Revenue Code) he deserves conviction more than most defendants on these charges and a long sentence!
If you attended a campaign rally for Edwards, would the gas you put in your car to get to the event be a campaign contribution? nIf you took vacation time to attend, would the value of your PTO be a campaign contribution? nIf you drive a friend to the polls and buy them lunch on election day, is that a campaign contribution? nWhat if you made a sign, would the materials be a campaign contribution? nIf you make calls from your house would a portion of the phone bill be a campaign contribution? n nI'm sorry but hush money is not a legitimate campaign expense. n nDon't get me wrong, I am not defending his behavior, but campaign finance law is a mess and it does more harm than good. Right after McCain-Feingold passed, the races became more about money than they ever were before. Such bad laws keep good people from running for office.
If you attended a campaign rally for Edwards, would the gas you put in your car to get to the event be a campaign contribution?
Answer: NO!
If you took vacation time to attend, would the value of your PTO be a campaign contribution? Answer, NO!
If you drive a friend to the polls and buy them lunch on election day, is that a campaign contribution? Answer: If it was on behalf of a Party or a candidate, YES!
What if you made a sign, would the materials be a campaign contribution? Answer: Actually under McPain-Feelgood, on behalf of a candidate for Federal office, YES!
If you make calls from your house would a portion of the phone bill be a campaign contribution? Answer: Under McPain-Feelgood you have to say that you are paying for the call, Really!!! And Edwards voted for this crap!!
I’m sorry but hush money is not a legitimate campaign expense. Answer: If the hush money is being used to keep information about a candidate for public office from the American public and that information, if known by the American public would tend to reduce support for that candidate then it IS a campaign contribution! That’s why this prosecution is in good faith and correct!
Let us give Edwards some credit, my impression is that he realized this and that is why he is fighting this instead of just pleading out which he probably could have done. n nOur government has gotten completely out of control. They think all the money is theirs, they think our every action, or inaction, must be regulated by them. They want to stick their finger in every ever-loving hostess twinkie that exists. n nThey need to be stopped. n n
Speaking of which – why the outrage, the seething calls for heads on pikes over JP Morgan's $2 billion trading loss? Compared to the $39 Billion they earned, it seems like small-ish albeit real mistake but hardly worthy of Congressional hearings and calls for instant regulations on everything in general.
Mark Levin stated on his show a few months back that he doesn't see Edwards doing jail time for this.
By that statement Mark Levin proved the opposite of adage that a broken clock is right twice a day.
If the money was not donated to the political side of this issue, then it must have been given to him for his personal use. If that is the case, did he so declare it on his income tax as receipt of a person gift of money in excess of the $13K permitted as a tax free donation? Did he pay taxes on it? If not, I suspect he has violated more severe laws than the silly campaign finance mess with which he is currently charged.
For the record, a genuine gift is NOT taxable to the donee. The donor must file a gift tax return on it and pay the gift tax on lifetime gifts of more than $1,000,000 which Bunny Mellon apparently did here. The purpose of the gift however was to elect John Edwards POTUS be keeping Ms. Hunter silent–a campaign contribution if there ever was one. This was not a genuine gift to either Ms. Hunter or to John Edwards but a campaign contribution subject to both limits and reporting requirements. That's the reason the indictment of Edwards was genuine and in good faith and since Democ-rats believe in both campaign finance laws and the gift and death tax (they are tied together in the Internal Revenue Code) he deserves conviction more than most defendants on these charges and a long sentence!
As I wrote in answer to Tobin's prior column the purpose of the monies raised from and paid by Barron and Mellon was to shut up Ms. Hunter so that Edwards could be elected President of the United States–a campaign contribution if there ever was one. Actually all of this was discussed when the campaign finance law was debated and Edwards, along with all but a very few of his fellow Democ-rats support its passage. He deserves this trial, a guilty verdict and a prison sentence at the high end of the sentencing guidelines (put in the US Code after being sponsored by Edward Kennedy). n nDemoc-rats think that legislation they pass does not apply to them. It's time that were made to be more careful about the legislation they sponsor and pass. Republicans don't believe in campaign finance legislation (except for a certain RINO) not in the Gift or Death Tax, Democ-rats do. They sponsored it and let them be hanged by it!
A real 10-Star reply, Davlevine! Major Mega Kudos and Dittos and Blessings – Psalm 91. n nThank you!
As they say in the next country to leave the Euro (after Greece), muchas gracias, Rose!
I love 98% of Tobin's commentaries – but sorry, Jonathan, it would be a sacrilege if Edwards could spend $1 mill out of his campaign on hiding his mistress from Voters WITHOUT a conviction! n nI don't care WHAT his donor and lawyers say about where the $$$ came from and what it was "intended for" – it didn't come from his hard legitimate work – it was fraud. n nAnd the worst horror is it gave McVain a platform to further conspire with DIMS on new campaign finance laws.