The Twisted Logic of the John Edwards Prosecution
The Twisted Logic of the John Edwards Prosecution
Lindsay Beyerstein: The Twisted Logic of the John Edwards Prosecution
Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has been indicted for allegedly misusing campaign contributions to cover up an extramarital affair that produced a child. Edwards behaved despicably, but the criminal case against him seems more like an ad hoc way to punish him for cheating on his dying wife than a serious pursuit of justice.
I supported Edwards in the primary. I was even offered a job as a campaign blogger, which I declined because I sensed my left-wing politics would be a liability for the campaign. Ironic, eh? I decided that my little lefty blog was too much baggage to work for a guy who, as it turned out, was trying to bluff his way through the primary, hiding a mistress and a love child. I mention this to underscore how incredibly reckless and contemptible it was for Edwards to stay in the race under the circumstances. I understand the sense of betrayal that seems to be driving public support for what is actually a very weak criminal case.
The indictment alleges that Edwards broke campaign finance laws by arranging for some of his rich friends to support his mistress, Rielle Hunter, and the daughter he had with her. He is not accused of spending campaign funds on her. Nor is he accused of accepting any money himself. According to the government, Edwards broke campaign finance laws because the payments to his mistress were really excess campaign contributions that were not reported to the FEC. If these payments were not campaign contributions, the government?s case falls apart. The government?s definition of campaign contributions is ridiculously broad, much broader than the FEC?s own definition.
One goal of campaign finance law is to limit the influence of any single person on a candidate by capping the maximum donations.
Another major goal of campaign finance law is to ensure that candidates use donated funds to campaign, and not to fund their own lavish lifestyles. The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has ruled that candidates may not spend campaign funds on personal expenses that they would have had whether or not they were running for office, such as clothing.
Note that the FEC has chosen to draw the line at clothing, even though there?s no question that wardrobe is an important part of a candidate?s image and that being well dressed enhances his electability. It?s perfectly okay to hire campaign consultants to tell a candidate what to wear for maximum political advantage.
This decision to define campaign expenses relatively narrowly makes sense, given the FEC?s desire to prevent candidates from converting campaign funds for private use.
When people donate to campaigns they expect their hard-earned cash to be spent on politicking: TV spots, junk mail, rubber chicken fundraisers, and garish buses. Part of the FEC?s job is to make sure their trust is not misplaced.
If any spending intended to enhance or preserve a candidate?s image counted as campaign spending, virtually any personal expense could be construed as a campaign expense, and campaign coffers would degenerate into slush funds.
A full head of hair and a gleaming smile are bankable political assets, but we don?t want campaigns paying for hair transplants and cosmetic dentistry.
Republican senatorial candidate Christine O?Donnell ran afoul of the FEC for using her campaign?s money to pay the rent on her home. Not Being Homeless is a non-negotiable part of any candidate?s image. A candidate with a fixed address is automatically more electable than a candidate living out of her car. Even so, that doesn?t make it okay to pay the candidate?s rent out of campaign coffers.
The FEC has been clear that if the candidate would have spent the money even if he weren?t running for office, it?s not a legitimate campaign expense. Clearly, Edwards had good political reasons to hide his affair. It?s also safe to assume that he would have wanted to cover up his affair whether he was running for office or not. What married man wouldn?t? The fact that Edwards didn?t spend his own money to keep Hunter quiet, even though he could afford it, suggests that he wanted to hide the affair from his wife, not just from the electorate.
Everyone has reason to own clothes; the fact that a candidate also has special political reasons to look good doesn?t turn his tailor?s bill into a campaign expense, even if he intends to use his flashy duds to help get him elected.
Generally speaking, if a candidate incurs out-of-pocket campaign expenses, the campaign must reimburse the candidate and report the expenditure to the FEC. A rich candidate can?t just plunk down her credit card and buy a bunch of lawn signs and leave that expense off the books. If supporting one?s mistress during a campaign is a campaign expense, that leads to the absurd conclusion that Edwards couldn?t have spent his own money on the project.
If fostering the image of a devoted family man is a campaign expense, then any money that Edwards spent out of his own pocket to support his wife or his legitimate children during the campaign would also be a campaign expense. After all, there?s no better way to destroy a family man image than to let your kids beg in the streets while you run for office.
By this logic, any candidate who spent their own money to support their family during a campaign would be engaging in campaign spending. But the FEC says that campaigns can?t spend money on that sort of thing.
The bizarre implication is that candidates cannot support their own families while they run for office. Either they?re breaking the law by spending out-of-pocket and not allowing the campaign to reimburse them, or they?re breaking the law by converting campaign funds for personal use.
It?s a Catch-22 that the government seemingly missed in its zeal to punish John Edwards for being an adulterer, a liar, and the worst presidential candidate in living memory.
