John Edwards Indicted

[GGT]

...on charges he misused campaign funds to cover-up his extra-marital mistress and child.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/us...s.html?_r=1&hp

Best case yet for moving to public campaign financing, getting rid of individual donors, lobbyists and special interest groups. What we have now simply creates room for scandals, moral hazards, cover-ups and lies. From groups and individuals. Incentives to use "donated" money to hush and hide, manipulate and maneuver, while calling it Free Speech.

IMHO.

[Dreadnaught]

That is the most out-of-left-field conclusion one could get from this.

When you make a campaign contribution, there are laws regulating how that money can be spent on the campaign. The accusation is basically that Edwards defrauded his contributors and violated laws by using campaign funds to cover up his affair.

Using public campaign financing wouldn't have changed the illegality of what he's accused of.

[Loki]

I have a feeling that GGT would come to the same conclusion if she posted a story about inflation in Zimbabwe.

[LittleFuzzy]

...on charges he misused campaign funds to cover-up his extra-marital mistress and child.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/us...s.html?_r=1&hp

Best case yet for moving to public campaign financing, getting rid of individual donors, lobbyists and special interest groups. What we have now simply creates room for scandals, moral hazards, cover-ups and lies. From groups and individuals. Incentives to use "donated" money to hush and hide, manipulate and maneuver, while calling it Free Speech.

IMHO.

What Dread said is right. This has absolutely nothing to do with public or private financing. It was a misappropriation of campaign funds, which is why it got him a criminal indictment. It would still be nothing more or less than misappropriation of funds if it had been drawn from public-sourced monies *actually, just which funds were used? They might have actually already been from public financing* and it is not noticeably easier or more difficult to misappropriate public-raised campaign funds over privately-raised campaign funds, under already-implemented FEC regulations.

[Hazir]

Does anybody really care about this case?

[Dreadnaught]

Not much, but it's pretty rare for cases like this to be brought. I can't remember the last time we've had a high profile presidential/vice-presidential candidate charged with violating election law.

Plus Edwards is now sort of a buzzword for social/political/moral downfall.

[Hazir]

To me it sounded a bit like a fait-divers topic; 'guy whose name rings a bell, accused of paying his out-wife out of the wrong till'. For those of us who don't care to read the sports pages or so.

[GGT]

What Dread said is right. This has absolutely nothing to do with public or private financing. It was a misappropriation of campaign funds, which is why it got him a criminal indictment. It would still be nothing more or less than misappropriation of funds if it had been drawn from public-sourced monies *actually, just which funds were used? They might have actually already been from public financing* and it is not noticeably easier or more difficult to misappropriate public-raised campaign funds over privately-raised campaign funds, under already-implemented FEC regulations.

My impression is it would be harder to misappropriate public funds, if we changed our system of how/where candidates get campaign monies. The million dollars in question came from two private donors, one now dead, the other having left a note suggesting it was a campaign contribution (not money to help a friend in a tight spot).

I may change the title to Campaign Finance Reform....to see what others think.