I’ve read some of the news reports about the Edwards trial and I’m not understanding why he was criminally charged.
I recall taking classes at the Small Business Administration. They stressed keeping your personal money and business money separate. You don’t pay your home light bill with a check from your business. Or pay a business expense with a personal check. Your personal life and money is completely separate from your business. The business can be setup so that it’s own tax entity and debts are occurred against the business.
From what I’ve read, it seems like thats what Edwards did. He received personal money from a rich billionairess friend as a favor to support his pregnant mistress. AFAIK the billionairess understood this was a personal gift. It had nothing to do with his campaign expenses.
I’m not seeing why this is a crime? Why can’t a rich friend give you something for personal use? If Edwards had been given the money before announcing his campaign wouldn’t that be legal?
Are they trying to say you lose all right to your personal finances when you run for office?
Let’s remove the sexy pregnant mistress from the story.
I’m running for mayor. My fishing cabin at the lake has an electrical fire and it burns. A close family friend hires a contractor and pays to get my cabin repaired. It’s somebody I’ve known personally for years and they want to help me.
Is that suddenly a crime because I happen to be running for mayor? :dubious:
The difference is that people are not property. The donor COULD have been motivated by sincere care for Rielle’s well-being. :rolleyes: But anyway, your comparison is … er, misleading at best and offensive at worst.
I’m just trying to understand the government’s position. Most of the legal analysts are saying this case is a huge leap in whats considered “campaign finance”.
Once a legal precedent is established it’s there forever unless its struck down by a higher court. All the candidates in future elections will be affected.
I’m seeing this in terms of a personal emergency that a friend stepped in to help. It’s different than financing a campaign with money under the table.
I’m trying hard to ignore the headline grabbing mistress. That’s a moral issue and something that destroyed Edwards as a political candidate. It also destroyed his marriage.
But, this case is an expansion of campaign finance law and how its applied to a persons private life.
The contention is that spending money to help someones campaign is a campaign donation whether you call it that or not. The effort to hide Edward’s mistress was done for the sake of helping his political candidacy, and so was a (non-disclosed) donation and thus illegal.
A fishing cabin, on the other end, is unlikely to have as its primary purpose aiding the political fortunes of its owner.
At issue is whether Rielle had any personal relationship with the Billionairess, or whether Ms. B made the payments in an attempt to curry favor with a possible future president.
The idea that the payments were a purely charitable relationship between Rielle and Ms B does seem to stretch credibility. Ms. B certainly couldn’t make payments to hs wife without the appearance of unethical behavior, so why should this be any less problematic? If anything, it’s more so because the potential for future blackmail certainly exists.
I don’t think its illegal to give money to politicians to curry favor, is it? If I cut Mitt Romney a check for a million dollars just so he’ll like me better, with no expectation of a quid pro quo, and the money isn’t used for his campaign and we pay all appropriate taxes, have I broken the law?
As a practical matter, everyone will assume its a bribe and it’ll hurt Romney politically, which is presumably why it isn’t done. But I don’t think its illegal.
If Mitt Romney is using some of his own money to finance his campaign, and you give him money to replace the money he spent, I think it might be tricky to claim that your gift isn’t a campaign contribution.
Agreed, but it’s hardly an extra step to say that it isn’t. Since the neighbor gave him $20,000 to rebuild his fishing cabin, now he has $20k extra to possibly spend on his campaign.
It would be an absurd construction to have limits on campaign contributions but then be able to give personal contributions that the candidate then turns around and gives to his campaign.
Money is fungible and it’s nearly impossible to follow a particular source of money. What if you give an alcoholic $20 bucks on the condition that he buys a meal with it instead of booze? Let’s say he does buy a meal with your physical $20, but that leaves his next $20 free for booze purchases (assuming he has not reached end state alcoholism and is still eating). Does it make a difference that your physical $20 went to food instead of using your money for booze and his next money for food?
Maybe, but at least in the context of the Edward’s case, the question seems to be whether the money was to help the campaign or not. From here, for example. So it appears that if the money is shown to not have been intended to help the Edwards campaign, it would have been legal.
Of course, as an added complication, the money went directly to Edward’s mistress, Edward or his campaign never touched it.
I think the main thing that keeps people from using the scheme you talk about is simply that one individual transferring a large amount of money to the personal account of a politician (or their mistresses, for that matter) is going to look like naked bribery to the voters, even if there isn’t any other evidence that thats the case.
but that’s the point - the gov’t’s argument is that this was hush money, paid to keep the thing under wraps during the campaign, and therefore was a political contribution to save his campaign. If his donor had given it to the campaign and they had paid it to his mistress, it becomes public. So instead, the donor makes a “gift” directly to a woman she doesn’t know, to save Edwards’ campaign. If that is proven to have been the motivation, I can see why it’s alleged to be an undeclared campaign contribution.
Yes. Certainly here in Minnesota, under our campaign finance laws.
Your friend has given you, a candidate for public office, something of value, which was not reported as required by law. And it’s likely that the amount given was larger than the maximum allowed contribution. (Also, did you report that gift from him as income when you filed your taxes with the IRS? If not, then you too may have committed a crime.)
A similar real-life situation happened a few years ago here in Minneapolis. A City Council member was overseeing some repairs & remodeling on his elderly mother’s house. Including plumbing work done on the bathroom. The local plumbers union persuaded the plumber who did the work not to send a bill for it. Her son, the City Council member, was eventually convicted and spent time in prison for this.
First, a million dollars is over the maximum contribution allowed.
Second, it was given secretly, without reporting (if we’re comparing it to the Edwards case).
Third, you’d have to prove that ‘no expectation of a quid pro quo’ part in court. And just based in common sense, that might be hard to prove. How many others, non-politicians, have you gifted with a million dollars, for example? A jury would be pretty skeptical of this.
Well, Food Stamps (or whatever they call them nowadays) still exist, and they can only legally be used for food, so the US government must feel that earmarking funds still has some value.
T-bon has an excellent point there. If Ms. B can show that she’s in the habit of supporting X number of single Moms each year, and Rielle just happens to be one she heard about through a fellow church member, everybody is probably int he clear.
OTOH, if Ms. B routinely gives $1M per year to Republican causes, and this she “didn’t” but supported Rielle for the same amount, ummm, that there’s gonna get stinky.
