Republicans will do anything, and it will get nasty

[ProSense]

This is about Edwards' presidential campaign bid.

Fieger expects federal indictment over fundraising for Edwards

BY JOE SWICKARDDetroit Free Press

DETROIT - Just two days after avoiding state criminal charges, attorney Geoffrey Fieger predicted Monday that a federal grand jury will indict him for illegal fundraising on behalf of John Edwards' 2004 presidential bid.

The federal charges would focus, Fieger said, on bonuses he gave to "civic-minded employees."

snip...

He refused to discuss the bonuses beyond insisting there is "no law whatsoever" prohibiting them.

Richard Steinberg, who represents Fieger in the criminal investigations, said authorities will attempt to characterize the payments as camouflaged campaign donations to Edwards.

"The feds are going to claim they were not bonuses, but were conduits" to skirt campaign contribution laws, Steinberg said.

According to the Federal Election Commission Web site, campaign contributors who have given the $2,000 maximum to a candidate cannot channel additional donations through other people.

"Similarly, a corporation is prohibited from using bonuses or other methods of reimbursing employees for their contributions," the Web site says.

Campaign finance records show most of the Fieger firm's 14 lawyers contributed at least $2,000 each to Edwards' presidential campaign. Their contributions totaled $26,000. Another lawyer now with the firm also gave to Edwards, but he was working for another firm at the time.

Three other people who listed the firm as their employer in 2003 contributed $2,000 each to the campaign. All told, Fieger and his colleagues contributed at least $32,000. Fieger also earlier contributed $2,000 to Edwards' Senate campaign committee.

The source of all the contributions being investigated was not immediately known.

more...

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/nation/13640439.htm

[sandnsea]

1. oh god

I have never liked this guy. Damn. This is too bad and it looks like he isn't even trying to pretend they weren't bonuses to go straight into the campaign. That's illegal and there's no two ways about it. I hope Edwards comes out right away on this. I like him and Elizabeth and think they really are trying to bring attention to poverty in this country. Of course, I have to wonder if this would even be an issue without all the Abramoff problems.

[ProSense]

3. It could be in retaliation for Abramoff to give the appearance

that Democrats are also corrupt. But the article doesn't even say how much in bonuses were given and if he always gives his employees bonuses. What Noe did was illegal because he solicited people with the promise of reimbursement. I think because Fieger was cleared of criminal wrongdoing at the state level, this might be politically motivated, but who knows.

[sandnsea]

4. It probably is

No doubt. I don't know what the state laws are in comparison to the federal laws. I just noted that Feiger didn't say he didn't do it, he said it wasn't illegal. That's where I drew the conclusion that they weren't just routine bonuses. I suppose we'll see as this unfolds. It'll be interesting to see how the media runs with this one as opposed to falling all over themselves to make excuses for the Republican scandals. Notice Cunningham is hardly mentioned anymore? And the fact that Delay took his seat on the appropriations committee didn't get mentioned either. Frustrating.

[BlueIris]

2. Ew. Sick.

Good LORD.

[rox63]

5. How is this different from

what *'s fundraisers who are the so-called 'pioneers' did? I think they had to raise $100,000 each, through bundling contributions from others. If what Feiger did is illegal, then shouldn't what the 'pioneers' are doing be just as illegal?

[karynnj]

6. It's different because (in theory) the pioneers simply

solicited people to contribute - and gave them nothing of value.

Here, the liklihood is that the Edwards themselves were not involved, but were the beneficiaries of money raised illegally - which happens in all campaigns. If they had no reason to think anything was wrong and reported everything properly, wouldn't they simply have to return the money.

Now if they found this happened in more than 1 law practice, they might be able to show a pattern. Or if there were emails between the lawyers and the Edwards - but this seems the kind of stuff they find every election. This type of stuff had to be the motivation for Wellstone and Kerry's clean campaign bill - it's just wrong when these things can create an image of corruption when it really isn't there.