Longtime readers know that I was a critic of John Edwards for essentially stealing his millions from innocent defendants; I was even ahead of the game on the Bunny Mellon connection, which, as that post documents, was part of a long line of Edwards campaign financing going close to or over the line. But as abhorrent as John Edwards's conduct was, and as questionable as his financial dealings were, the federal indictment shows more problems with the incoherent nature of campaign finance law than with anything Edwards did criminally. Alternate-Universe Attorney General Edwards would have had no compunction about avoiding this sort of prosecutorial abuse, so, like Eliot Spitzer before him, there is a certain schadenfreude, but I still have to be on record opposing at least parts of this indictment. [Taylor; Kirkendall; WSJ; NYT; WRAL]
The John Edwards indictment
Related Entries:
- Overcriminalization on the high seas
- Around the web, April 11
- New statute would make state witness tampering a federal crime
- Bader on the Theodore Urban case
- Paul Larkin on the STOCK Act
- Reflection on the criminal law scholarship of William Stuntz
- Supreme Court hears argument on Stolen Valor Act
- Around the web, February 21
- Distinguishing between the "public corruption amendment" and fighting public corruption
- Bill introduced to de-criminalize the Lacey Act
- New Column: Potential criminalization of traditional business relationships
- Around the web, January 27
- SOPA protests demonstrate the value of limited-government principles
- New Podcast: James Copland and Andrew Wise discuss 'honest services' fraud post-Skilling and the Kevin Ring trial
- New Podcast: James Copland and Timothy O'Toole discuss overcriminalization concerns raised by the 'Clean Up Government Act'
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |



