What's up with Edwards receiving illegal campaign contributions?

[Hep]

So he had to give money back because some of the people who donated were promised by their (lawyer) bosses that they would be reimbursed?

And what does it say that two thirds of his campaign contributions have come from people in the legal industry donating the maximum $2000? Ack!

[displacedtexan]

1. Where are you getting this stuff?

Source? Link?
and lawyers get to donate to candidates, too. JJJJJJEEEEEEZZZZZZ!

[Hep]

4. This is no secret in NC.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx

Lawyers get to donate, but talk about beholden! Edwards has an impressive record for looking out for the little guy, but every lawyer? Right.

[placton]

2. What's the problem?

I am a proud member of "the legal industry." When you hear these attacks, what they are really saying is this "contributions from lawyers who represent folks injured by big corporations, the government, idiot cops, defective products, etc."

Edwards is the best candidate in protecting the rights of the little guy to sue and keep the big boys honest. In case you haven't noticed, there has been a huge attack by the right for years on people who have legit causes of action against the aforementioned.

I am a Clark supporter, but this is one area where Edwards is on the side of the angels.

[Hep]

5. Edwards has a good record, no doubt.

But over seven million from the legal industry is three times what Buish gets. Add that to secretaries giving $2000 all at once, expecting to be reimbursed. It's pretty messed up.

[Qutzupalotl]

8. Bush wants to cap damages and stop "frivolous" lawsuits.

I'm surprised he gets any legal money at all.

[Hep]

10. Why are you surprised?

He gave them a huge tax cut. Why shouldn't they want him in office?

[Qutzupalotl]

17. Because he's endangering their livelihood. n/t

[Hep]

19. Nah

He's just limiting their profits. He's more than making up for it.

[placton]

15. Gee, how surprising:

the article fails to mention this is a GOP tactic, for corporate donations. My bet: this crap is straight from a fax from the RNC "oppo research" desk. The article fails to convince me - but, hey I'm biased.

[Hep]

16. Way to dismiss it outright!

Pretty much what I expect.

Reporting the truth is not a GOP tactic, by the way. What in the article do you deny specifically, and how?

Thanks!

[madmax]

7. Everybody hates lawyers

until they need one. :evilgrin:

:hi:

[Hep]

9. I don't hate lawyers.

I think it's stupid. But I start to wonder when they line up to the tune of seven mill and offer to reimburse employees for contributions. One would think lawyers would KNOW THE LAW. My mistake I suppose. I mean, I know the law and I'm not a lawyer. I guess it is just too much to ask.

[cspiguy]

3. With 1000+ posts, I'm sure you have a good source/link for this

but it is explosive - so I hope you will share it with us. Otherwise its a worthless rumor.

[Hep]

6. My pleasure

http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx

From a non partisan publication.

[Warren Stuart]

11. Curious but it stinks

How come the DOJ will leap tall building with a single bound to harass Democrats, but treats Republicans with kid gloves?

Your title is misleading, these contributions were being questioned, in this country we innocent until proven guilty.

[Hep]

12. It's not misleading

I want to know what's up. I'm shocked to see how many people know nothing about it.

[Warren Stuart]

13. As per DU rules

If you are going to reference an article, you have to put the unedited title of the article in the subject line. You didn't do that.

You stated that the contributions were illegal, until this is proven in a court of law, it is just your opinion. This is misleading.

[Hep]

14. I didn't reference an article

until I was asked. I didn't quote an article or anything.

I just asked what's up. But feel free to alert. It's just odd that you don't actually want to discuss the merits. Other than to say until he's found guilty we should pay no mind? He's under investigation and you don't think that's important? Ack!

Half of our arguments against Bush fall flat on their faces if we apply that logic.

[ncdemocrat]

25. thank goodness for JE.

Him leaving the senate will AUTOMATICALLY give US another Republican senator next year. Thank you John

[leyton]

18. Ayeee!

We can't afford to elect this guy. He might pack the cabinet with fellow members of the oil industry. I mean legal industry. We can't have that, can we?

[Hep]

20. Who knows?

All I know about him is that when you hire him to do one job, he starts seeking out new ones before he executes his job description.

[surfermaw]

21. Cut The Crap

Are you crying because your candidate didn't come in first and Edwards beat him, frankly if Goer had chosen Edwards instead of Liberman, he would be president.

This stuff you have hear is crap..one lady complained in and office last year, and Edwards returned the money...

Answer this question, do you want a democrat in the White House, or do you just want a certain democrat in the white house...You need to take notice from the republicans, they didn't get a choice the dumb son the lesser Bush was almost forced on them, they stood behind the nut and now he is in the White HOuse....

You democrats had better wake up soon, or we will have four more years of Bush.

[Hep]

23. Too funny!

If Gore had chosen Edwards he would never have come close. At that point, Edwards would have had less than TWO YEARS under his belt. And at that point, he wasn't doing a great job anyway.

If what I have hear (sic) is crap, then I guess the DOJ investigation doesn't exist.

I want a certain democrat in the white house. Because I know there is only one who will keep our party alive. GUess what, it isn't Edwards.

WE democrats? Are you not one? And you're telling ME to wake up? Mkay!

[genius]

22. What's up with Dean's Halliburton contributions

When is he giving these back?

[Hep]

24. Were they illegal?

What specific information do you have?

Don't get me wrong, I love the fifth grade arguments. But shifting focus from the actual topic in an effort to distract is a pretty weak defense. Actually, it's not a defense at all.