Reply #40: No link - I am trying to understand this as that appears to be what the charges say

[karynnj]

I have NO legal background at all - unless you count watching LA LAW years ago :)

As I've posted, I do not understand the rules here at all. I agree with you that people do not pay taxes on campaign contributions. I have seen contradictory things on whether she originally made it transparent that it was a gift - and who it was a gift to. There were reports that she falsified the memo portion writing things like "antiques". (one question might be when she paid gift taxes. If it was an amended return AFTER the investigation started, it could be that her people were trying to protect her.)

What I was commenting on was that IF unlimited gifts were allowed from anyone to a candidate, it really drives a truck through campaign finance laws. If people can give unlimited gifts to politicians, it seems that there is NO real campaign financing contribution limits. (This is why I used the 2004 example, that it was written often that Teresa could not give millions to her husband's campaign. In fact, there were comments that Teresa would have been unable to retroactively pay off the mortgage had Kerry lost without risking both of them being charged with campaign violations. If there were no gift limits, it would seem if Bunny Mellon, whose relationship with Edwards was that she saw him as a potential President, could give Edwards unlimited money, certainly a woman would be allowed to give unlimited money to her husband. That would make it the candidate's money and it is completely true that you can self finance.)

I would prefer that the case be quickly resolved and one recommendation by the judges be that campaign finance laws be made more comprehensible. I also don't know why the flagrant Christine O'Donnell person use of campaign funds haven't already led to an indictment for misuse of funds.