Yes, yes it should be illegal. If I donate money to a candidate, it should not be legal to use my money as hush money to cover up something they did. It doesn't matter to me whether what they are covering up is legal or not. People should be able to donate money to candidates without worrying about the money being flushed in an effort to cover a lie.

Now, if he used his personal money to cover it up, then no, it shouldn't be illegal.

A good point.

Just because you can legally do something does not mean you should do it.

This is but one example. Morals and ethics should not need to be criminalized. We, as a society should scorn people who act unethically and immorally. We should not imprison them.

On the other hand, this shows that the Citizens United decision is flawed. While money may be speech, money in politics is corrosive and excesses of money in politics leads to graft and corruption.

I agree with you, everything about Edwards is sleazy these days and I don't like any of it, but campaign finance laws should not be this all encompassing. Even though it is burning Edwards right now this and other complicated campaign laws are very effective at scaring away potential citizen legislators, clearing the way the field for the well to do and connected.

Aw, come on. This is like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. I am all for it.

Allajn:

That Citizens United bit seems a stretch to me: John Edwards's wrongdoing was entirely removed from the need to raise campaign money; it had little to do with money, one thing of which Mr. Edwards has plenty. You are muddying the waters.

(Unrelated editorial note in re: some of yesterday's reader remarks: Okay, those captchas are annoying me, too, especially the Dish one. Will complain to the Suits about them.)

Hokkoda:

Perhaps I haven't made this clear, but my understanding is that the transactions in question were not paid out of campaign funds -- that is what makes the campaign-finance prosecution worrisome to me. So far as the transactions in question are concerned, Miss Hunter was paid by a third party (a nonprofit), not by the campaign. The charge is that this constitutes an illegal campaign donation. That seems to me odd.

Now, if the nonprofit had been charged with fraud or money-laundering, or if Edwards had been charged with suborning a crime of that sort, it would not seem to me remarkable. But unless I am misled on the facts (and it is a CBS story, bear in mind!) campaign funds were not involved.

Money represents time, the time someone applied to some task to earn it and what it purchases is something someone else has put time into producing. So money is just an efficient way to transfer "time".

If I can legally work for a candidate on an unlimited basis, without pay, then why shouldn't I be allowed to spend another form of my "time" (my money) in an equally unlimited fashion on a candidate?

Everyone knows "time is money". Applying this logic then to all facets of campaign economics would simply mean similarly limiting the physical time one has to $2,000 worth of hours or allowing unlimited contributions. Since some people can better afford giving their physical time, the candidates who can appeal to this segment (students, retirees, unemployed, union personnel) has an unfair advantage over a candidate who doesn't appeal to these groups as long as their "time" is not regarded as "money".

Many have pointed out that Reagan would never have run for governor of California without initial support from a few, wealthy, people. Eugene McCarthy's campaign was similarly supported by a few individuals.

If I'm independently wealthy, I can spend anything on my campaign. So the reality of current campaign law means that often one has to be on one end of the political spectrum or another; run a campaign highly slanted to appeal to those who can "work" for your candidacy if you are poor or run any campaign you like if you have wealth.

End all limits on contributions. Just make all donations payable by personal check. Make contributions over $1000 public on an ongoing basis so voters can see if a candidate is getting outsized monetary support from one person or a group of affiliated people. Run audits, periodically, on campaigns, during campaigns, to make sure the donors are who they say they are. Don't publish the donors under $1,000 during the campaign to encourage donations from people who might, otherwise, be subject to intimidation (those able to give over $1,000 would appear to have the status to withstand intimidating tactics). Also, list all "volunteers" and their hours, similarly, with those over the $1,000 comparable donation time posted as well.

Put all this data on line with appropriate penalties for non-compliance both for donors as well as candidates.

What would this accomplish? It would level the playing field for all types of candidates. It would reveal those who MIGHT seek to influence a candidate by extraordinary generosity. It would allow someone very wealthy, with integrity, to fund a friend's campaign who they believed in.

In other words; money buys time that, ultimately, allows for or enhances "speech" in some manner. Either we believe in unlimited political "speech" and recognize all economic facets that apply to producing it or we continue to add an endless number of laws to limit, somehow "unacceptable" forms of facilitating political speech. "Unacceptable" being something bureaucrats and incumbents are left to define.

I'm with mikeb, indicting a scoundrel is always a cause for celebration (see DSK).

Kevin W- this is the problem with you Right Wing wonks, you're so ... so... principled!! You need some of that Krugman and Brad DeLong shamelessness.

Kevin: I'm coming down on the side of the folks who say this *is* a campaign contribution, because it's intent was to tailor the candidate's image, while avoiding proper accounting. As such, it is illegal, while not addressing the question of whether it should be illegal.

Related question: if this one is illegal, how about the hush money Arnold paid to keep that kid out of the news at exactly the time when his zipper problem was being scrutinized? Answer: this being out of his own pocket, no donor was involved, so it can't be seen as a contribution. I think that one is clear. No donor, didn't use campaign funds, no contribution, so not covered under the law.