Political Affairs

Politicians [are] a set of men who have interests aside from the interests of the people and who, to say the most of them, are, taken as a mass, at least one long step removed from honest men.

Abraham Lincoln, Speech in Ill. Legislature 1837

Recent events create an awareness that too little guidance has been given politicians on the proper way to deal with problems that arise when the non-politically ambitious partner in an illicit affair with the politically ambitious partner decides to share news of the affair with the public and the politically ambitious partner hopes to keep that from happening or seeks to mitigate the damage.  Herewith four examples of how politicians have dealt with the issue.  The first two involve using strangers’ money.    They are demonstrated by Bill Richardson and John Edwards.


In 2007 a former state employee threatened to sue then Governor Bill Richardson because of an affair they allegedly had.  A meeting of his campaign team and his “inner circle” reportedly took place to determine how to settle the threatened suit before it became public.  The solution they hit upon was that Mr. Richardson’s supporters would pay the accuser $250,000 to keep the matter quiet.   Mr. Richardson, who was then considering a run for the presidency, is now the target of a grand jury probe over whether there may have been campaign contribution violations in connection with those payments. According to a report in the Albuquerque Journal the grand jury is trying to determine whether that money came from money that had been raised to enable the governor to fund his presidential aspirations which would have violated campaign finance laws, or whether the money paid to the mistress came from wealthy friends of the candidate as gifts.


Mr. Richardson’s supporters may have been using the example set by John Edwards although Mr. Edwards’ problems were more complex since his liaison had produced a tiny Edwards. According to reports, Mr. Edwards received more than $725,000 from a wealthy old (she is 100) friend, Bunny Mellon, that he used to buy the silence of his girlfriend.  The question that will be answered by a federal jury next January is whether those payments were campaign contributions that should have been reported or gifts that did not need to be reported. (Bunny reportedly filed gift tax returns reflecting the gift.) Mr. Edwards initially claimed to know nothing of the money (or the baby) and being now aware of both, says the money was not a disguised form of campaign support that should have been reported to the government but simply a gift.  The government disagrees.   Because of the differing perceptions of what the payments represented, a 12-person jury will decide whether the government or the candidate has the proper understanding of the facts.


Another way of dealing with his kind of problem was shown by former Senator John Ensign.  When the senator’s affair with the wife of his long time aide became public in 2009, he asked his parents for help, and they wrote out a check to her, her husband and their two children for $96,000.  As a result, there was no grand jury inquiry into the source of the money.  Indeed, Mr. Ensign’s lawyer, Paul Coggins, specifically said that “None of the gifts came from campaign or official funds nor were they related to any campaign or official duties. Senator Ensign has complied with all applicable laws and Senate ethics rules.”  The money was not hush money since the affair was already public.  Mr. Coggins said the payment was made “out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time.”  Of course not all parents are able or willing to pay off their children’s mistresses so that example is probably less useful for the run of the mill politician.


Herman Cain had a different approach. When Mr. Cain learned that a woman who claimed to have had a 12-year affair with him was going public, he beat her to the punch by publicly denying the affair before she had a chance to disclose it.  He paid her no money thus avoiding campaign finance laws proscriptions He simply called her a liar. This made good sense since he had already called three women who weeks earlier had accused him of sexual harassment, liars.  People who believed him when he said the first three accusers were liars probably believed the final accuser was a liar.  Those who did not believe the first three were liars would probably not believe the fourth accuser was a liar.  In short, no one’s opinion of Herman Cain was changed by the final allegation. Mr. Cain’s approach was obviously better than trying to buy the silence of the fourth accuser.

He avoided an investigation of his finances.

It is too early to know how Messrs. Edwards and Richardson will fare when the dust settles. We do know that Mr. Ensign resigned his senate seat and that Mr. Cain abandoned his quest for the White House.  Both results were more of a sacrifice for them than for the country.

Christopher Brauchli is an attorney living in Boulder, Colorado. He can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu.


More articles by:
March 21, 2018
Paul Street
Time is Running Out: Who Will Protect Our Wrecked Democracy from the American Oligarchy?
Mel Goodman
The Great Myth of the So-Called “Adults in the Room”
Chris Floyd
Stumbling Blocks: Tim Kaine and the Bipartisan Abettors of Atrocity
Eric Draitser
The Political Repression of the Radical Left in Crimea
Patrick Cockburn
Erdogan Threatens Wider War Against the Kurds
John Steppling
It is Us
Thomas Knapp
Death Penalty for Drug Dealers? Be Careful What You Wish for, President Trump
Manuel García, Jr.
Why I Am a Leftist (Vietnam War)
Isaac Christiansen
A Left Critique of Russiagate
Howard Gregory
The Unemployment Rate is an Inadequate Reporter of U.S. Economic Health
Ramzy Baroud
Who Wants to Kill Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah?
Roy Morrison
Trouble Ahead: The Trump Administration at Home and Abroad
Roger Hayden
Too Many Dead Grizzlies
George Wuerthner
The Lessons of the Battle to Save the Ancient Forests of French Pete
Binoy Kampmark
Fictional Free Trade and Permanent Protectionism: Donald Trump’s Economic Orthodoxy
Rivera Sun
Think Outside the Protest Box
March 20, 2018
Jonathan Cook
US Smooths Israel’s Path to Annexing West Bank
Jeffrey St. Clair
How They Sold the Iraq War
Chris Busby
Cancer, George Monbiot and Nuclear Weapons Test Fallout
Nick Alexandrov
Washington’s Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen
David Mattson
Wyoming Plans to Slaughter Grizzly Bears
Paul Edwards
My Lai and the Bad Apples Scam
Julian Vigo
The Privatization of Water and the Impoverishment of the Global South
Mir Alikhan
Trump and Pompeo on Three Issues: Paris, Iran and North Korea
Seiji Yamada
Preparing For Nuclear War is Useless
Gary Leupp
Brennan, Venality and Turpitude
Martha Rosenberg
Why There’s a Boycott of Ben & Jerry’s on World Water Day, March 22
John Pilger
Skripal Case: a Carefully-Constructed Drama?
March 19, 2018
Henry Heller
The Moment of Trump
John Davis
Pristine Buildings, Tarnished Architect
Uri Avnery
The Fake Enemy
Patrick Cockburn
The Fall of Afrin and the Next Phase of the Syrian War
Nick Pemberton
The Democrats Can’t Save Us
Nomi Prins 
Jared Kushner, RIP: a Political Obituary for the President’s Son-in-Law
Georgina Downs
The Double Standards and Hypocrisy of the UK Government Over the ‘Nerve Agent’ Spy Poisoning
Dean Baker
Trump and the Federal Reserve
Colin Todhunter
The Strategy of Tension Towards Russia and the Push to Nuclear War
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
US Empire on Decline
Ralph Nader
Ahoy America, Give Trump a Taste of His Own Medicine Starting on Trump Imitation Day
Robert Dodge
Eliminate Nuclear Weapons by Divesting from Them
Laura Finley
Shame on You, Katy Perry
Weekend Edition
March 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Michael Uhl
The Tip of the Iceberg: My Lai Fifty Years On
Bruce E. Levine
School Shootings: Who to Listen to Instead of Mainstream Shrinks
Mel Goodman
Caveat Emptor: MSNBC and CNN Use CIA Apologists for False Commentary
Paul Street
The Obama Presidency Gets Some Early High Historiography