As a jury in North Carolina weighs whether John Edwards violated campaign finance law when he attempted to cover up an affair, several legal experts contend that murky questions about the law would offer Edwards a good chance of winning an appeal if he is convicted.
The case centers on nearly $1 million that two campaign supporters allegedly paid for the living expenses and medical bills of Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter, to prevent news of the affair from becoming public.
The crux of the prosecution hinges on a fundamental question about campaign finance law: What is a campaign contribution? The parties in the case agree on the amount of money spent and who spent it — the dispute is over whether it falls under the rubric of a campaign contribution.
The case started with the decision to prosecute Edwards on a novel legal theory that expanded the standard definition of a campaign contribution, campaign lawyers say. In bringing the case, the Department of Justice was setting aside an earlier policy that it would not pursue cases that had been turned down by the Federal Election Commission. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.
Read more at The Washington Post.
