There are some troublesome aspects to the indictment of John Edwards, who faces charges of conspiracy, perjury, and campaign-finance-law violations for allegedly using campaign donations to keep an affair with Rielle Hunter, who later became pregnant with his child, quiet. This isn't because there's anything good to say about his underlying behavior. And as Brad Plumer notes, it's not exactly because the charges are frivolous. The charges won't be easy to prove, but the statute at least arguably covers Edwards's behavior.
The biggest problem that I have, in fact, is that I could see campaign finance law becoming a venue for partisan prosecutions, because like the "honest services" law, it's difficult to know what's legal and what's not, and many candidates will arguably cross the lines. The possibility for selective prosecution is clear, and it's hard to ignore the fact that the U.S. attorney in this case has a political grudge against Edwards. It would be easier to live with this if campaign finance law was actually able to fulfill its goal of not allowing moneyed interests to dominate politics, but in the post-CItizens United era, we face the prospect of campaign finance law that will cause politicians from both sides to randomly be sent to jail without actually accomplishing any important goals.
My second problem is the insistence of the prosecution that Edwards accept a substantial jail sentence. I could perhaps be persuaded that Edwards accepting the money without disclosure was an illegal act worthy of a substantial fine. But a jail sentence? For an act of, at best, ambiguous illegality that had no serious impact on the 2012 election? I just can't see that as anything but prosecutorial overreaching. And the government's unwillingness to consider a plea without jail time makes me additionally suspicious about their motives.
