Some bloggers are crying foul over John Edwards's email collection (and use) practices.  One goes so far as to call it "phishing": "Edwards uses wife's illness for campaign phishing"* 

Here's a description of what's going on (Mary Ann Akers/Wash. Post):

When you visit the John Edwards for President Web site, you're invited to send a sympathy note to the Edwardses. And tens of thousands of well wishers have done so since that heart-wrenching news conference two weeks ago at which Elizabeth Edwards courageously discussed her incurable cancer.

What those well wishers get in return -- e-mail messages soliciting contributions to Edwards's campaign.

Visitors to the Edwards site who choose to "send a note to Elizabeth and John" are first taken to a heartfelt letter from the candidate that was written the day after he learned that his wife's cancer had returned. Edwards thanks readers for their "prayers and wishes," vows that he and Elizabeth will "keep a positive attitude always look for the silver lining" and declares that "our campaign goes on and it goes on strongly."

Anyone who then chooses to send a note of sympathy to the Edwardses -- and, thus, provide his or her e-mail address -- automatically becomes part of the Edwards campaign's online e-mail database, a list that is crucial to any campaign's ability to raise vast amounts of money over the Internet.

I don't know the answer to whether this is appropriate – legally speaking.  Most spam and related statutes deal with only "commercial" email.  So it's tough to get into trouble under those provisions (query as to whether a pure fundraising email would fall into this category).  Most identity theft statutes require obtaining someone's identity under false pretenses and/or with the intent to commit an additional fraud or financial crime.  I don't think either of those types of rules would be triggered.  While the disclosure around the use of the well-wisher email address may not have been crystal clear, the utlimate use of the email addresses is probably not clearly prohibited. 

Then there's the whole First Amendment issue.   Does the First Amendment provide license to skirt rules normally applicable to email collection and use?  Probably not.  However, the state must typically be careful when regulating candidate speech, including fundraising speech.  Any legislation purporting to address email practices by candidates will be met with strong skepticism by the courts.  Last campaign cycle saw a lot of activity and allegations around robocalls.  This time around I think we will see the same but with respect to email.  Maybe we will even see some legislative proposals to regulate this stuff.  That would, of course, mean ensuing legal challenges.