Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,980 posts)
Tue Feb 13, 2018, 11:31 PM Feb 2018

The Heritage Foundation's case for why John Edwards was guilty of illegal campaign contributions

would apply to Michael Cohen's payment of $130K to Stormy Daniels.

John Edwards was indicted and put to trial. Michael Cohen should be, too.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/why-john-edwards-guilty

Misinformed critics of the government’s prosecution claim that such gifts of funds are not covered by campaign-finance law. But federal law limits the amount that a donor can contribute to a federal candidate. That amount was $2,300 in 2008, when Edwards was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. The law defines “contribution” to include a gift or “deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.”

Most important, FEC regulations state that the payment of a personal expense by any person other than the candidate is considered a contribution to the candidate, unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. As the FEC said in a prior advisory opinion, the key question is, “Would the third party pay the expense if the candidate was not running for Federal office?”

The testimony of government witnesses makes it pretty clear that the payments by these donors would not have been made if Edwards had not been running for office. Edwards is a multimillionaire; he could easily have afforded to make the payments (including legally obligated child support) out of his personal funds. But such personal payments would have blown up his candidacy and made it impossible to hide what he clearly wanted to keep hidden. The payments by his maxed-out campaign contributors were clearly intended to “influence” the 2008 presidential election by keeping Edwards in the race and protecting his reputation.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Heritage Foundation's case for why John Edwards was guilty of illegal campaign contributions (Original Post) pnwmom Feb 2018 OP
As what we are seeing and hearing on MSNBC Wellstone ruled Feb 2018 #1
'A federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted Edwards in 2011 on six felony charges elleng Feb 2018 #2
 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
1. As what we are seeing and hearing on MSNBC
Tue Feb 13, 2018, 11:35 PM
Feb 2018
Trump has lost Mrs. Greenspan as a defender . Cohen will be next in the Barrel.

elleng

(130,964 posts)
2. 'A federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted Edwards in 2011 on six felony charges
Tue Feb 13, 2018, 11:39 PM
Feb 2018

of violating multiple federal campaign contribution laws to cover up an extramarital affair to which he admitted, following his 2008 campaign. Edwards was found not guilty on one count, and the judge declared a mistrial on the remaining five charges, as the jury was unable to come to an agreement.[2] The Justice Department dropped the remaining charges and did not attempt to retry Edwards.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Heritage Foundation's...