LOL. Okay Rachel, we love you. But John Edwards is completely a ZERO!

[karynnj]

86. I get your point - and given that Citizens United changed everything - it is unlikely that anyone

else will ever be charged. However, it might be that there was no other IDENTIFIED flagrant flouting of the campaign laws - assuming that this is taken as a campaign contribution.

The reason it could be considered a campaign contribution is that - if allowed to be a personal gift to Edwards, there is in fact absolutely NO restrictions on campaign contributions because the candidate is allowed to contribute as much as he/she chooses - either outright or as a loan.

One test of how the idea of large gifts to a candidate was viewed under the law was that the media and his Democratic rivals watched like hawks saying that Teresa Heinz Kerry could not give her husband more than the maximum credit because they had separate finances. Now, this is an extreme case. There is no way to claim that doing so would give Teresa more access or favors. The Kerrys opted not to test this - leading to Kerry mortgaging his half of the Boston house to get cash to lend to his campaign. Even then the media spoke of how Teresa would not have been allowed to pay off the debt - as that would be an illegal contribution. The other extreme would be someone wanting an Ambassadorship or some preferred legislative treatment. Giving his "best friend", the candidate, $1 million when the campaign could use it would be a powerful enticement.

JRE's donors would be between these two extremes. Had McCain/Feingold been upheld in the Citizen's United, this trial would be very significant as it would have created a loophole a truck could drive through in the law if it was deemed ok.