Edwards Indicted by Federal Grand Jury

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 3, 2011
All Rights Reserved.                                         

            Former Vice Presidential nominee and two-time Democratic candidate Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) was indicted by a federal grand jury on six counts of conspiracy, issuing false statements and violating campaign finance laws.  Faced with a $1.5 million fine and up to 30 years in federal prison, Edwards, through his lead defense counsel Greg Craig, denied any wrong doing, asserting that any monies paid by private donors to his 47-year-old pregnant mistress Rielle Hunter was designed to keep his then cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth Edwards from discovering the affair.  Elizabeth died of breast cancer Dec. 7, 2010.  “John Edwards will tell the court he is innocent of all charges, and will plead not guilty.  He did not break the law and will mount a vigorous defense,” said Craig.  At stake is whether or not Edwards paid Hunter with campaign contributions to keep her silence.

            Edwards, 58, a one-term U.S. senator from North Carolina, was considered among the most promising rising stars in the Democratic Party.  His 2006-07 affair with Hunter sank his political career.  “A centerpiece of Edwards’ candidacy was his public image as a devoted family man,” said federal prosecutors establishing a motive for Edwards’ cover-up.  While its true that Edwards PR team coveted his wholesome image, it’s also true that most married men cover-up extramarital affairs.  “Edwards knew that public revelations of the affair and pregnancy would destroy his candidacy, by among other things, undermining Edwards’ presentation of himself as a family man and by forcing his campaign to divert personnel and resources way from other campaign activities to respond to criticism and media scrutiny regarding the affair and pregnancy,” read the indictment.

           Prosecutors must show more than Edwards’ desire to preserve his image.  Most individuals cover up affairs in whatever ways possible.  If Craig can show that whatever money was paid to Hunter was private donations not earmarked for his presidential campaign, then the government’s going to have a difficult time proving its case.  Only by establishing that “campaign” funds were diverted as “hush money” can the government prove campaign finance violations.  Negotiations between Edwards and the Justice Dept. broke down when Edwards refused to plead to a felony, something that would have killed his legal career.  Prosecutors zeroed in on two contributions from separate donors paid to Hunter, including $725,000 from 100-year-old drug and banking heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon and $200,000 from Texas lawyer and personal friend Fred Baron, Edwards’ campaign finance chairman.

            Prosecutors accuse Edwards of lying to the media when he said he knew nothing about payments to Hunter.  Citing an obscure June 14, 2000 advisory opinion as case law, prosecutors hope the “Harvey” decision, named after Phillip Harvey who asked the Federal Election Commission about whether a private donation could be used for something other than the campaign, helps their case.  Craig will argue that Edwards’ isn’t bound by the “Harvey” decision because its was not decided by a judge or jury.  Edwards’ certainly danced on the razor’s edge funneling private donations to Hunter.  Whether private donations were paid to keep Hunter silent or not, Edwards contends he had a right to use the money as he saw fit.  Government officials must demonstrate Edwards’ intent to divert campaign funds to pay “hush money” to keep Rielle from going to the press.

            Edwards’ desire to pay money to a mistress doesn’t violate campaign finance laws, constitute conspiracy or issue false statements.  There’s nothing knew about individuals covering up affairs or deliberately misleading the media.  Edwards’ didn’t lie to a grand jury or while taking a deposition under oath.  “Democracy demands that out election system be protected, and without vigorously enforce campaign finance laws, the people of this country lose their voice,” said U.S. Atty. for the Eastern District of North Carolina George E.B. Holding.  If the government shows that private donations were intended for campaign finances, then it’s going to be difficult to dismiss the charges.  With the burden of proof on the government, Edwards’ lawyers need only show that private donations were used to keep Elizabeth in the dark.  Raising nefarious motives doesn’t violate campaign finance laws.

            Government prosecutors have a steep burden of proof that Edwards violated campaign finance laws.  Citing the obscure “Harvey” opinion doesn’t make it established case law that private donations always become campaign contributions.  Whether folks like it or not, Edwards was within his rights trying, by whatever means necessary, to keep his wife Elizabeth from learning about his affair a love child.  Former Edwards’ aid Andrew Young lied about Edwards’ love child to protect his boss.  Edwards’ cover-up, while egregious, doesn’t represent a violation or any law unless the government proves he used campaign contributions as “hush money.”  Public knowledge of Edwards’ behavior torpedoed his political career.  If the private donation called “Bunny money” was used to keep Edwards’ wife Elizabeth from finding out his affair and love child, then it doesn’t violate campaign finance laws.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.