"Edwards took contributions in excess of what federal law allowed, conspired with others to do so, and lied about it by not including the contributions on forms filed with the Federal Election Commission.
The problem with this theory is that it is not clear that these expenses fit the legal definition of a 'contribution.' As the indictment explains, that definition includes 'anything of value provided for the purpose of influencing the presidential election,' including contributions to a candidate. But it does not include payments for the personal expenses of a candidate if 'they would have been made irrespective of the candidacy.'
If Edwards took the cover-up money to save his marriage and generally preserve his public image, he's not guilty of federal campaign-finance violations. That's why the indictment emphasizes the 'devoted family man' aspect of the campaign. So the question is how to draw the line between the personal and the political."
