Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


John Edwards trial: What will verdict mean for campaign finance? (+video)

Closing arguments in the John Edwards trial are set to begin Thursday. But the political significance of the trial in defining the limits of campaign finance has been greatly dampened. 

By Staff writer / May 17, 2012

Former presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (c.) arrives at a federal courthouse with his parents, Wallace and Bobbie Edwards (r.), in Greensboro, N.C., Wednesday.

Chuck Burton/AP

Enlarge

In the end, it seems, the John Edwards trial became only a circus sideshow in America’s convulsive efforts to define the limits of campaign finance. 

Skip to next paragraph

The defense rested abruptly Wednesday without Mr. Edwards taking the stand, marking the end of a courtroom drama that had plenty of drama but little of what the prosecution had promised, analysts and observers say.

Before the trial began, prosecuting attorney Lanny Breuer said the federal government won’t “permit candidates for high office to abuse their special ability to access the coffers of their political supporters to circumvent our election laws.”

But what followed became little more than an effort to put a deplorable face on the alleged evils of breaking campaign-finance law. Edwards, prosecutors said, funneled $900,000 of campaign cash to his pregnant mistress to hide the affair from his ill wife and to keep his name in the running as a potential 2008 vice presidential candidate.

To some, the prosecution has overreached in an attempt to net a big fish. Yet the broader context of the trial has also played no small part in stripping it of deeper meaning for the political world. Indeed, given the US Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling in 2010,  a candidate in a similar situation today would likely be able move such money to its target in an alternate, and legal, way.

As it is, prosecutors are seeking convictions on six felony counts. Defense lawyers say that, even if Edwards knew about the transaction, it was far from a clear campaign cash violation and doesn’t rise to the level of a felony.

How the jury views those points will matter greatly to Edwards. Closing arguments are set to begin Thursday. But the Citizens United ruling has made the trial seem like a window onto a bygone era.

In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court ruled that groups that are not connected with candidates can solicit and use campaign dollars for campaign activity, so long as it is not coordinated by a candidate. The ruling opened the floodgates for so-called "super political-action committees," which raise and spend millions of dollars to advocate on behalf of an issue or a candidate, though they are not actually affiliated with the candidate’s campaign.

In the Edwards trial, the defense has argued that Edwards didn’t actually coordinate the money transfers from millionairess Bunny Mellon to an account that Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter, could use as a former campaign aide shuttled her around the country. This, to some experts, sounds like activity that would now be legal under super PACs.

Permissions

Read Comments

View reader comments | Comment on this story

  • Weekly review of global news and ideas
  • Balanced, insightful and trustworthy
  • Subscribe in print or digital

Special Offer

 

Doing Good

 

What happens when ordinary people decide to pay it forward? Extraordinary change...

Danny Bent poses at the starting line of the Boston Marathon in Hopkinton, Mass.

After the Boston Marathon bombings, Danny Bent took on a cross-country challenge

The athlete-adventurer co-founded a relay run called One Run for Boston that started in Los Angeles and ended at the marathon finish line to raise funds for victims.

 
 
Become a fan! Follow us! Google+ YouTube See our feeds!