The personal/campaign use dilemma is a difficult one in many campaigns. For most candidates, the campaign takes over their life to the extent that almost everything personal becomes campaign related and vice versa. It is often difficult as a campaign lawyer to sort out these issues. (Not that I'd ever defend what John Edwards did, legal or not.)
"Edwards’ team says the payments were to keep the affair a secret from hurting his cancer-stricken wife. The government alleges they were a scheme to keep the child conceived by Edwards and Rielle Hunter a secret from the public to protect his White House ambitions.
“A centerpiece of Edwards’ candidacy was his public image as a devoted family man,” the indictment of Edwards says. “The communication strategy developed by Edwards’ campaign stressed the importance of publicizing, among other things, ‘that (Edwards’) family comes first.’”"
Politico:
Ari Melber hones in on a weird feature of the Edwards indictment, and suggests:
[T]he prosecutors actually have the law exactly backwards. It would have been a violation of campaign finance law if Edwards did what the prosecution says he failed to do – file and spend the money for his family as official campaign expenditures.I was struck by this feature in conversations with lawyers Friday as well: If Edwards can't pay for his mistress out of campaign cash -- that would be illegal "personal use" -- how can he be barred for paying her bills outside the campaign finance system? What's a sleazy politician to do?
