Friday, June 3, 2011

I hate to say it.....


but I think I agree with the position of the legal team of John Edwards.

8 comments:

njDylan said...

Slippery slope TJE. I don’t want to live in a world where campaign contributors can dictate how candidates spend the money…

TJE said...

njDylan, it's not clear to me how the government will show that these were "campaign contributions" and not personal gifts.

njDylan said...

I understand their argument but then why does the FEC even exist? Why even bother setting up donation limits if you can circumnavigate them via personal gifts to a friend? And I am sure there has to be a tax on these gifts. I think this article shows the counter-argument to the defenses’ claim (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/how_john_edwards_400_hair_cut_lead_to_alleged_illegal_donations.php). If the checks were documented for their intended use then I think Edwards could better articulate the “gift” argument. (Yes, it is is counter-intuitive to document checks that are supposed to be covering something up !) But, by making the checks out for something that they are not, it is presumed that he knew very well what the donations were for.

TJE said...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

njDylan said...

"The money that was spent here didn't go for campaign ads or get-out-the-vote efforts. It was invisible to voters. It allowed Edwards to keep his wife (and voters too, of course) in the dark about his girlfriend and baby and relieved Edwards of the need to support them. Those are hardly noble objectives, but is policing this sort of misconduct really the function of campaign finance laws?"


YES TJE!!! That is exactly what they are for!

TJE said...

That casts a very big net njDylan.

TJE said...

At least two former FEC commissioners disagree with you and the government:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0611/Edwards_defense_comes_out_firing.html

TJE said...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56242.html