John Edwards: $2.3 million must be paid back by campaign committee
John Edwards $2.3 million: Attorneys for Edwards' campaign committee say they will appeal the decision, which otherwise would take effect when the audit is completed in about 30 days.
(Page 2 of 2)
The Washington, D.C., law firm representing the campaign, Utrecht & Phillips, argued in a written response that there was no overpayment. The attorneys contend the campaign should have received matching funds earlier than it did. As a result of the late payment, the committee says, it was entitled to matching funds based on its outstanding obligations at the time it received the payment rather than before Edwards pulled out of the race.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The Edwards campaign also contends that auditors were wrong when they determined that about $500,000 in payroll did not qualify for matching funds because the money was spent in February, after Edwards was no longer eligible. The campaign says the money was used to pay employees overtime, to close out more than 70 offices across the country, and for travel reimbursement.
Auditors said that the campaign had given conflicting explanations about the February payroll, including that it was for bonuses that tripled staffers' salaries. The committee's attorneys say the explanations are consistent.
Commissioner Donald McGahn II said he agreed with the auditors' findings, although he didn't see anything wrong with the committee having different explanations for how it spent the money. "I don't like micromanaging campaigns," said McGahn, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2008. "I don't think it's my job. They spend money as they want to spend it. But it's taxpayer money."
The Edwards campaign also argues that it is incurring legal costs that shouldn't be counted against the limit on how much "winding down" money it can spend . Campaign attorneys note the committee has been "providing extensive information to the Department of Justice." That is a reference to the federal investigation that eventually led to Edwards' indictment in North Carolina on federal charges alleging criminal violations of federal campaign laws to cover up his affair with Rielle Hunter, with whom it was later revealed he had a child.
FEC legal counsel views those expenses as a legitimate use of campaign money, but says they should be included under the winding-down cap. The campaign committee's attorney, Patricia Fiori, said that no campaign funds have been spent on Edwards' defense in the criminal case.
The FEC has approved candidates using campaign funds for legal fees, but decides on an individual basis.
Edwards' criminal case came up briefly during Thursday's FEC meeting when McGahn noted that the commission could end up dealing with the campaign committee again. "I guess we'll call it the pink elephant in the room — the indictment issue," McGahn said.
The audit notes that Edwards is accused of payments by third- and fourth-party intermediaries to keep a lid on his affair. If federal prosecutors' theory of the case leads to Edwards' conviction, then his committee may have to repay additional funds.