While the government presented a convincing case for Edwards’ general turpitude, what it failed to do was show that he had committed a crime. This prosecution was a stretch from the beginning. Edwards was accused of violating campaign finance laws, but those laws are notoriously arcane. None directly addresses a candidate or his staff soliciting contributions to cover up a candidate’s affair. It was not surprising that, navigating this murky legal landscape, at least some jurors would accept the defense’s contention that the funds were gifts rather than campaign contributions – and that the campaign finance laws therefore did not apply.
Cohen’s argument? The defense pulled off a savvy move by never playing Edwards as the innocent, arguing that while while he certainly was guilty of personal failings, they did not equate to the campaign finance crimes he was accused of. Edwards essentially said this at his press conference yesterday: “While I do not believe I did anything illegal, or ever thought that what I was doing illegal, I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong.” Agree? (EDIT: minor correction)
Today in ongoing tension: Jurors in the John Edwards campaign finance trial will deliberate for a seventh day, amid word of “juror issues” affecting the decision-making in the case. Edwards could face prison time depending on how they decide. (photo by Gerry Broome/AP)
It gave her something to look forward to. The campaign gave her a wonderful focus and something to really hold onto.Bryan Huffman, a confidante of 101-year-old philanthropist Rachel “Bunny” Mellon • Discussing her $725,000 in under-the-table donations to the John Edwards campaign in 2007 — donations which were used as “hush money” to keep Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter a secret. Mellon’s payments were disguised as payments for furniture, to the point where notes were attached describing what kinds of furniture they were used for. Mellon, the daughter of an early Gillette president, also donated $6 million to Edwards’ PAC and, after the campaign, was allegedly pushed by an Edwards aide to donate $40 million to $50 million to a foundation for fighting poverty.
Time for Citizens United: Round 2? Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s longstanding campaign finance laws banning corporate political spending, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock. The decision came after American Tradition Partnership and two Montana businesses filed an application asking the Court to strike down the Montana Supreme Court’s decision. ATP now has until the end of March to formally request that the Court review the Montana Supreme Court’s decision. If they don’t, Montana’s decision would stand, but should they file the request, it would pave the way for a full review of the controversial Citizens United decision. (photo courtesy of flickr user kenudigit) source
Basically, it affirmed what we were all seeing on the streets, which is the average Missoulian wanted to have their voice heard … and they want their elected officials to fix the problem of corporate personhood. So I hope this message is heard and we get started on fixing the problem.Missoula, Montana Councilwoman Cynthia Wolken • Discussing her successful efforts last week to get a referendum passed in her city against the concept of corporate personhood, which was codified with the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision. While the vote — which had a 75/25 split at the polls — wasn’t binding, it is one step in the direction of encouraging Congress to pass an amendment to help fix the system, and one small push in a larger national movement. (thanks Michael Cote) source (via • follow)
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
