Will mixed outcome to John Edwards' case alter campaign finance laws?

RALEIGH, N.C. - Defense lawyers in the John Edwards case complained that he was prosecuted under a "novel" view of campaign-finance law. Apparently, it was so new jurors couldn't agree on what it was and whether Edwards broke it.

Now the murky conclusion of the jury's deliberations --- acquittal on one count, no unanimous agreement on the remaining five -- leaves it equally unclear whether the case will change how campaign contributions and expenses are defined and reported going forward.

Edwards was accused of receiving excessive contributions from two benefactors to hide his mistress, and failing to report the money as campaign contributions. At least some jurors accepted his defense that the monies were personal gifts, not campaign contributions.

Experts are divided about whether the trial will stand as an isolated event or one that will widen the definition of a campaign contribution.

"It's such an odd and idiosyncratic case that it will probably have no bearing on the law," said Thomas Mann, a political scientist with the Brookings Institution who specializes in campaign funding.

Mann said the funding landscape has changed dramatically since Edwards benefited from the donations during his campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. In 2010, the Supreme Court allowed corporations and unions to make independent political expenditures. That change has allowed corporations and unions to give unlimited amounts to aid candidates through super PACs.

But Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, disagreed. She said a conviction would have had broad consequences and made campaign-finance law "more of a mess than it currently is."

Edwards was accused of using more than $900,000 in funds from two billionaire supporters to cover up his extramarital affair with Rielle Hunter, and her pregnancy.

"Every campaign-finance lawyer and every candidate is looking at this because, if this is a crime, it is totally unclear what is a reportable campaign contribution. We have no idea," Sloan said. "If this is campaign expense, you can arguably say everything is a campaign expense."

Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, said the case raised questions about the misuse of campaign-finance law rather than a new interpretation of it. He said it was wrong for the government to bring criminal charges in an area where the law is vague and shifting. He said: "The Edwards case should not be seen alone but as part of a pattern of controversial prosecutions of political figures.