John Edwards splits hairs, loses Round One | Eastern NC Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles ruled today (10-27-11) that John Edwards defense in his campaign finance case must go to trial. Edwards had contended that he broke no laws in taking money as gifts from supporters and using it to cover up his affair with his mistress. Observers say that the issue now will become a factual issue to be decided on the basis of the specific evidence related to this particular case.

    Click here to read more about the judge's decision.

    The case is of interest to legal scholars focused on campaign finance laws. The essential question is: What is a campaign contribution and what is a personal or business gift?

    The same issue was raised recently when former Beaufort Senator Marc Basnight retired from the General Assembly. He had "leftover" campaign funds amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. He applied for and received approval to spend those funds, essentially for personal use in his activities. He contended that his retirement activities qualified as "campaign expenditures."

    A similar, but what could be with a different twist, has recently arisen with former Democrat representative from Beaufort, Arthur Williams, who switched to the Republican party. Question have been raised about whether it is legal and proper for him to spend money given by donors who believed they were supporting a Democrat to run as a Republican.

    Edwards' legal team in essence argued that gifts to a candidate are not necessarily "campaign contributions" but rather should be classified as some other kind of "gift."

    The law is obviously unclear about what is a campaign contribution and where is the line between donations of gifts vs. campaign contributions.

    Commentary

    We think this is an absurd controversy. The issue, as we see it, is not whether a specific donation--call it whatever you want--is a campaign contribution or simply a personal/business gift. The issue is whether the recipient is a politician or not. If they are, then the money or "valuable consideration" should be accounted for under the campaign finance laws. If the politician retires or changes parties, or even runs for something else, the money should be returned to the donors.

    This legal hair splitting by Edwards, Basnight and Williams is hogwash. Any money received after filing for office should be spent and accounted for as campaign expenses or returned. To contend it is a "personal gift" or is personal money is like the purchasing officer of a government agency saying that the trip a vendor gave him was "personal" and not related to the fact that he was a government official who bought things the donor sold.

    If you are a politician the gifts you receive are political gifts, unless they come from family members or you can prove you would have received the gift even if you were not a politician.

    In John Edwards case he is simply a disgusting example of lawyers who have lost sight of right and wrong and focus instead on the technical nuances of words and their arrangements. "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." He reminds us of Al Gore, who justified an illegal act by saying "there is no controlling legal authority" dealing with the facts in that situation. Or like the school superintendent in a neighboring county who, when caught using the school system issued cell phone to arrange rendezvous with his lover on the clock and taking her on "professional trips" with him defended his actions by saying: "there is nothing in policy or in my contract that prohibits anything I have done." Disgusting.