On October 26, U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Eagles, an Obama appointee, refused to dismiss the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against John Edwards. See this story. The ruling was oral, and the judge has not issued a written opinion yet. The case is USA v Edwards, middle district, North Carolina, 1:11-CR-161. Here is a court document that summarizes the federal government’s case.

In 2007 and early 2008, John Edwards was a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, and for a while he was considered just as likely as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to get the nomination. At the time Edwards was involved in an affair, which was secret from the world and from Edwards’ wife. However, a wealthy backer of John Edwards was aware of the situation, and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to a very close associate of Edwards, who used the money to pay the living expenses of the mistress, and to pay for the elaborate activity needed to keep her existence a secret. The wealthy backer was an elderly woman who was a very close personal friend of Edwards, and who admired Edwards hugely. No one believes that her motivation in giving the money was other than a very deep friendship; she was not seeking favors from a possible future President Edwards.

Much later, the U.S. Attorney General brought a criminal case against Edwards, on the theory that the money should be considered a campaign expense, and that campaign contribution limits should have been obeyed. Edwards tried to get the case stopped, arguing that the money should not be considered a campaign expense, but so far, the case will go ahead. This case is philosophically important because it reaches fundamental problems about the definition of campaign contributions. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Seoul, capital and largest city in the Republic of Korea, held a Mayoral election on October 26. The election was won by Park Won-soon, an independent candidate. He is the first independent ever elected to this position since Seoul has been having elections for city office. See this story. Park defeated the nominee of the party that runs the national government. Over 4,000,000 votes were cast in the Mayoral election. No city in the United States has ever had that many voters voting in a city election.

On October 26, an Arizona Superior Court ruled that a ballot measure that would de-fund public funding should not appear on the ballot next year. The legislature had placed it on the ballot. It was removed from the ballot because Arizona, like almost all states, says that ballot measures cannot encompass more than a single subject. The ballot measure would have de-funded public funding for Arizona state office, and also done the same to the public funding for the City of Tucson. Although the decision says the idea of de-funding public funding for both the state and Tucson is a single subject, the flaw in the measure is that it requires Tucson to turn over all the money in its public funding account to the state treasury, and the state’s taking the city’s money is a separate subject. Here is the 4-page decision.

Legislative leaders suggested they may not appeal, and instead would pass the measure all over again early in 2012, without the flaw. See this story. The case is Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation v Bennett, Maricopa County cv 2011-9646.