Edwards indicted #2

John Edwards says that he did wrong, and he apologized; but, he says, "I did not break the law."

He may be right, and that is all that should matter when the case comes to trial. It all hinges on whether the $975,000 contributions from two wealthy friends, used to keep his mistress and baby out of sight and away from the media, constituted a campaign contribution.

Prosecution claims it did, because the secret revealed would have adversely affected his campaign for president. There's absolutely no doubt: it would have ended it, on the spot.

But Edwards claims the money was to keep the secret from his wife, not from his campaign. Shady, but nothing illegal about that, if you have friends that wealthy and that devoted to helping you evade responsibility. They can give you, or your mistress, that much money, if they wish. But the amounts are way over the limits set by law for campaign contributions. That's what would make it illegal, and that's the only way John Edwards may have broken the law.

Some legal experts have said that no court has ever interpreted campaign contributions this broadly to include such payments. So he could be acquitted if a jury agrees.

Here's the question I would raise to the jury to test whether it should be considered a campaign contribution: if he had declared these as campaign contributions, would the expenses to which they were applied (ie, buying a house for a mistress, paying her lavish living expenses) be accepted as legitimate campaign expenses?

Probably not. So, if the money was given specifically to be used for the mistress, and if that is not a legitimate campaign expense, how can it be called a campaign contribution?

So . . . as much as I recoil from what Edwards did, and the betrayal of us all and the danger he put the country in, I too am not sure that he broke the law. If he did, it's way out at the margin of interpretation of what constitutes a campaign contribution; and there will be legitimate differences of opinion by legal experts.

Let's see what a jury decides. It's going to be hard to keep that one focused narrowly on whether he broke any law, because it is so sensational a story that will necessarily be told in court. That's what good lawyers are for -- to keep it focused narrowly on the law and not let it become a media circus.

Ralph