Could Old Dem Divorce Loan Boost Edwards' Legal Case?

[struggle4progress]

Ryan J. Reilly | June 3, 2011, 5:27PM

... Federal prosecutors at the Justice Department are relying on an advisory opinion issued in 2000 by the Federal Election Commission which found that campaign regulations apply to an individual giving a gift to an candidate running for office. The FEC concluded that the "proposed gift would not be made but for the recipient's status as a Federal candidate; it is, therefore, linked to the Federal election," and was therefore subject to regulation.

But the Edwards legal team could bring up a 2002 opinion from the FEC which has some relevance to the Edwards case.

The issue at hand in that opinion was a $25,000 loan from drug company lobbyist Terry Lierman to Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), who needed money to help pay off legal fees related to his divorce. Lierman's check was endorsed over to a law firm to pay for Moran's attorney.

"The FEC found that this personal loan was not a campaign contribution primarily because they determined that, given the pre-existing relationship between the donor and the candidate, the loan would have been given irrespective of the fact that Rep. Moran was a candidate for re-election at the time the loan was made," Brett Kappel, who worked on the case for Moran, told TPM. "The Edwards can make a similar argument about the Baron and Mellon contributions" ...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/old_dem_divorce_loan_could_boost_edwards_legal_case.php

[frazzled]

1. The problem is ...

Edwards was an extremely wealthy man in his own right: a multi-millionaire. He didn't really need to borrow it from Mrs. Mellon. Why the hell didn't he just pay off his mistress himself? I suppose to keep it from Elizabeth and from the press. So that makes it pretty campaign related. He could have paid it, but his candidacy would have been ended.

A side question: why would it take nearly $1 million dollars to pay for rent and medical costs for her for a year or two?

Well, let him argue his case in court. If he proves his innocence, so be it.

[struggle4progress]

2. Read the LA Times article here:

John Edwards pleads not guilty: 'I did not break the law'
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-edwards-talks-20110603,0,3901207.story

Read the whole thing. There's some interesting stuff towards the end

[frazzled]

3. Nothing new in it I haven't yet read today

The case will hinge on whether the financial transaction is considered a campaign contribution or not.

Frankly, I don't really care about it that much. I'll wait to see what the defense and prosecution put forward. Greg Craig is a top-notch lawyer.

Some of the emails sent by the donors, however, are a bit incriminating. Enough for the grand jury to decide to proffer charges.