At the heart of the trial of former Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards is a central question - what is a campaign contribution?

Prosecutor will try and convince the jury that Edwards knew the one million dollars he received from donors to hide his mistress and love child was a campaign donation. But even they must know their task is impossible

U.S. campaign funding laws are so purposely vague, it is almost impossible to track all the money that flows into and out of a politician's accounts and tie them to particular actions and purposes.

Maybe this will present an opportunity to take the vagueness out of the law, but I doubt it. Politicians like to work in between what is right at what is wrong.

Edwards's defense team is fully aware of the inconsistencies in the law, which is why they are staking their case on the argument that fathering a child with a consenting adult and then accepting a financial contribution to hide the 'problem' from his wife is not a federal offense. After all, what is a million dollars among friends. It is not against the law to give someone a million dollars to hide their sins or for the sinner to accept the money.

Or as defense attorney Allison Van Laningham said on Monday, "John Edwards is a man who committed many sins, but no crime."

Edwards went to extraordinary lengths to conceal his infidelity from his late wife Elizabeth. He even convinced campaign aide Andrew Young, who is now the key prosecution witness in his case, to claim that he was the father of Hunter's child.

Young claims Edwards used millions of dollars from two wealthy donors, Bunny Mello and Fred Barron, to pay for Hunter's living expenses. That is wrong, but not illegal and certainly not criminal.

On the stand on Tuesday, Young testified that Edwards' aides sought help from a number of people to help finance an effort to stash the pregnant Ms. Hunter far from the media-rich environment of the campaign. Young said Edwards had assured him that the contributions were legal.

Prosecutors argue that the money was meant to keep the Edwards campaign viable, because Edwards would have quickly been electoral toast if the truth were to come out. Thus, the money was a campaign contribution, they say. But the money was not given to the Edwards campaign

John Edwards is guilty of being sleazy, but he is not a criminal.