Trump Indictment Is a Perversion of Campaign-Finance Law

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

Trump Indictment Is a Perversion of Campaign-Finance Law

If a candidate has to pay for his own clothes, surely hush money is likewise a personal expense.

 

By Bradley A. Smith

March 31, 2023 6:13 pm ET

 

In choosing to convene a grand jury to pursue the Donald Trump-Stormy Daniels affair, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg faced two big problems—one political, one legal. The indictment of Mr. Trump will address the first, likely at the expense of the second.

To recap how we got here: Ms. Daniels, a pornographic film performer, alleges she had a fling with Mr. Trump in 2006, nearly a decade before he entered the Republican primary for president. Once Mr. Trump became a candidate, Ms. Daniels began demanding money in exchange for her silence. Mr. Trump obliged, and his company, the Trump Organization, sent $130,000 to Ms. Daniels through Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. The expense was apparently recorded on the company books as “legal fees,” which the indictment is expected to allege was a falsification of business records.

Mr. Bragg’s political problem is that this charge is chump change, merely a misdemeanor under New York law. To ratchet it up to a felony indictment, the district attorney has to show, among other things, that the falsification was designed to conceal another crime. That crime is believed to be a campaign-finance violation—an illegal corporate contribution by the Trump Organization to the Trump presidential campaign—which the false business reporting was meant to conceal.

Here’s where Mr. Bragg’s legal problem comes in: Was the hush money a campaign contribution? The governing statute, the Federal Election Campaign Act, provides that a contribution is any donation made “for the purpose of influencing any campaign for federal office.” The Trump Organization, says Mr. Bragg, paid Ms. Daniels to prevent revelations that would have hurt Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. Thus the payments were “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election—and, since corporate contributions to a campaign for federal office are illegal, the case is closed.

Not so fast.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that because campaign-finance laws infringe on core First Amendment activity, they can’t be dependent on vague, subjective interpretations. Accordingly, the clause “for the purpose of influencing any federal election” is an objective standard. As another section of the statute states, an obligation isn’t a campaign expenditure if it exists “irrespective” of the campaign. In other words, campaign funds pay for campaigning—the campaign manager’s salary, ads, campaign travel, venues for rallies, polling and so on. They don’t pay for personal expenses not created by the act of campaigning, even if the candidate intends for them to benefit the campaign.

The statute’s objective nature is demonstrated by a noninclusive list of things that campaign funds may not be spent on no matter how much they might benefit—or be intended to benefit—a campaign. For example, if a candidate wants to look good in a debate and purchases a $4,000 suit he would never have bought if he weren’t running for office—that is to say, he buys it with the subjective intent to influence an election—it still can’t be purchased with campaign funds, because he would have to buy clothing anyway. A country-club membership can’t be purchased with campaign funds, no matter how much the candidate intends for it to benefit his campaign by giving him a place to schmooze donors.

Candidates with substantial business interests, such as Mr. Trump, will frequently find themselves facing lawsuits—some merited, some not. If such a candidate were to instruct his company’s legal counsel to settle them, the settlement payments would, subjectively, be made “to influence an election.” Legally, however, such payments couldn’t be made with campaign funds and would have to be made by the company or the candidate personally, because the underlying obligation wasn’t created by the act of campaigning.

These restrictions on converting campaign funds to “personal use” may be the one meritorious part of our complex, often destructive system of campaign-finance regulation. They define the difference between bribes—donations for the candidate’s personal benefit—and campaign contributions. Who really thinks that a candidate can—let alone must—use campaign funds to pay hush money for past affairs, and who knows what else? But that’s what Mr. Bragg’s theory would require.

In other words, the “crime” that Mr. Bragg claims is being covered up isn’t a crime at all. Worse still, one is left with the distinct impression that if Mr. Trump had used campaign funds to pay Ms. Daniels, Mr. Bragg would be alleging that the underlying crime the business records were intended to cover up was the illegal conversion of campaign funds to personal use. This is a classic Catch-22 that undermines the rule of law.

Mr. Trump has a remarkable ability to make both his ardent supporters and his ardent critics abandon long-held principles for short-term satisfaction. If Mr. Bragg is somehow able to make these charges stick, it will betray fundamental tenets of campaign-finance law and those who believe in the rule of law.

 

Mr. Smith is chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and a law professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. He served as chairman of the Federal Election Commission in 2004.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-indictment-is-a-perversion-of-campaign-finance-law-alvin-bragg-hush-money-business-records-daniels-bdb5942c?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

[DKW 86 7,946]

Got to ask this here: Is it fair that trump is likely going to get tried as an adult? 

That seems a bit unfair to me... 😉

Flea'd from a friend on FB.

 

Edited April 2, 2023 by DKW 86

[I_M4_AU 9,029]

21 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Got to ask this here: Is it fair that trump is likely going to get tried as an adult? 

That seems a bit unfair to me... 😉

Flea'd from a friend on FB.

 

Better than not being tried because of dementia.

[DKW 86 7,946]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Better than not being tried because of dementia.

I will actually cede you your pithy retort.

Well done.

[AU9377 6,093]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Better than not being tried because of dementia.

Stop picking on Marjorie Taylor Greene

[I_M4_AU 9,029]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

Stop picking on Marjorie Taylor Greene

There’s many that fit this scenario.

[AU9377 6,093]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

There’s many that fit this scenario.

I agree... on all sides.

[PUB78 1,418]

It’s a shame. This will be dismissed pretty fast by a judge, but Trump will use it to rally his followers and raise $.

[1716AU 803]

16 hours ago, PUB78 said:

It’s a shame. This will be dismissed pretty fast by a judge, but Trump will use it to rally his followers and raise $.

You certainly don't get New York law and order do you.

Let me see if I can do it in your pithy Alabama-ese

Bragg and the New York DA's office are not going to bring indictments unless they're pretty damn sure they've got his ass. You see, up there, like in dc, like in baltimore, like in philadelphia, like in Boston, they really like their conviction rates.

Neither will the Fulton county district attorney.

This is going to be fun to watch

[TitanTiger 21,504]

16 hours ago, PUB78 said:

It’s a shame. This will be dismissed pretty fast by a judge, but Trump will use it to rally his followers and raise $.

I think if it were just going to be summarily dismissed, it would have either happened already, or the DA would have declined to pursue charges.

[PUB78 1,418]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think if it were just going to be summarily dismissed, it would have either happened already, or the DA would have declined to pursue charges.

Time will tell. Just more drama from Trump and his supporters.

[AU9377 6,093]

46 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think if it were just going to be summarily dismissed, it would have either happened already, or the DA would have declined to pursue charges.

I would normally agree.  However, these charges, from what we know,  are misdemeanor charges that were upgraded to felony charges based partially on federal laws.  There is a statute of limitations problem with charging strictly on the falsifying business records charges.  We still don't know for certain, but some of the charges could be conspiracy charges.  However, that would be a conspiracy to commit a crime that is only a crime under federal law.  Federal prosecutors decided not to pursue charges, which would have been charges like the ones Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to and served prison time.  It is a convoluted mess.  That usually leads to problems for the DA.

Trump has much more serious legal problems in the Georgia election interference case.  The danger, in my opinion, is that these less serious charges cast doubt on the more serious charges in other jurisdictions. 

[aubiefifty 18,429]

On 4/2/2023 at 10:23 AM, I_M4_AU said:

Better than not being tried because of dementia.

see? you cannot stop smooching trumps butt. instead of agreeing you have to slight biden. see how that works. this tells me you told a whopper and i believe you still love trumper. when i get my y shirt of him  behind bars i will wear it in your honor..................

[I_M4_AU 9,029]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

see? you cannot stop smooching trumps butt. instead of agreeing you have to slight biden. see how that works. this tells me you told a whopper and i believe you still love trumper. when i get my y shirt of him  behind bars i will wear it in your honor..................

If he ends up behind bars it will be a good thing, then maybe we will have a Republican candidate most people can get behind.

[aubiefifty 18,429]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

If he ends up behind bars it will be a good thing, then maybe we will have a Republican candidate most people can get behind.

i am not kidding. if liz runs and makes it i will look at her hard. i think she loves her country and is honest. we i m4 can you actually say trump sucks? just curious. i pick at you regularly but i admire your willingness to realize he was not what you thought. and his thug son just posted a picture of the dem judges daughter which i am not too happy about. he is giving idiots a target and if one thing happens to that young lady i hope he gets thrown under the jail. i am pretty sure he is a drug addict.i was some pics where his eyes were bleeding almost they were so red from coke. and not the sipping kind. i would bet my house he is. i have seen so many druggies come and go over the years playing in bands or just being in bars. or dennis k if he runs again.

[I_M4_AU 9,029]

3 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i am not kidding. if liz runs and makes it i will look at her hard. i think she loves her country and is honest. we i m4 can you actually say trump sucks? just curious. i pick at you regularly but i admire your willingness to realize he was not what you thought. and his thug son just posted a picture of the dem judges daughter which i am not too happy about. he is giving idiots a target and if one thing happens to that young lady i hope he gets thrown under the jail. i am pretty sure he is a drug addict.i was some pics where his eyes were bleeding almost they were so red from coke. and not the sipping kind. i would bet my house he is. i have seen so many druggies come and go over the years playing in bands or just being in bars. or dennis k if he runs again.

I like Trump’s policies, much better than Biden’s, but the way he is always having some kind of drama with his life and/or politics is getting real old.  Speaking of old, he is and America needs younger blood in that position.  A little more than 2 years to go and a lot can happen.  This trial and the one in Georgia (which is sure to come) might take a toll on Trump or he may just grow stronger.  Those trials may go until the election.  Trump will never pull enough independents to his camp and it will be difficult to win the Presidency without the independents.

Looking for better times.

[aubiefifty 18,429]

son you need to get laid more. all you got is face palms and angry faces. turn that frown upside down young man!

[Son of A Tiger 649]

I'm not a lawyer but listening to number of so-called legal experts today after Trump's arraignment, I ask the question.....what is the crime and why 34 counts of essentially the same misdemeanor? NY law requires a crime for a felony charge. Bragg avoided that question when asked by a reporter at his PR. 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Son of A Tiger

[aubiefifty 18,429]

Just now, Son of A Tiger said:

I'm not a laywer but listening to number of so-called legal experts today after Trump's arraignment, I ask the question.....what is the crime and why 34 counts of essentially the same misdemeanor? NY law requires a crime for a felony charge. Bragg avoided that question when asked by a reporter at his PR. 

hey man go ahead and donate a couple of grand to trumps poor ol me fund...............you will feel much better. ask trump...he will tell you.

[aubiefifty 18,429]

On 4/2/2023 at 10:27 AM, DKW 86 said:

I will actually cede you your pithy retort.

Well done.

pithy? is that hairlip for pissy?   lmao

[aubiefifty 18,429]

3 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

I'm not a laywer but listening to number of so-called legal experts today after Trump's arraignment, I ask the question.....what is the crime and why 34 counts of essentially the same misdemeanor? NY law requires a crime for a felony charge. Bragg avoided that question when asked by a reporter at his PR. 

what about don jr putting the picture of the judges daughter out there? look which side you are on son. good grief. how many of trumps cabinet been arreste4d AND convicted in a court of law? you guys kill me. you know trump made himself an exact rep of the oval office at his marlago or whatever and he demands that everyone down there call him mr president. the man is unhinged. all you have to do is listen to what he says. but i bet you are someone that will never admit when he is wrong. am i right?

[aubiefifty 18,429]

son sometimes it is better to just not say or do anything and let people know i am living rent free in yo mind. keep it going because i love it! it lets me know i have done my job today.

[aubiefifty 18,429]

i love it baby.................keep it coming.

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I think if it were just going to be summarily dismissed, it would have either happened already, or the DA would have declined to pursue charges.

It will for sure get dismissed on appeal if the judge(who dislikes Trump) doesn't dismiss it first. The feds failed to pursue a misdemeanor because they didn't see anything there. The FEC could have fined Trump like they did Hillary for violating campaign finance laws, but they didn't because in their view it didn't happen.

The only reason it's gotten this far is because of the political makeup of those pursuing this and the jurisdiction it's in.

[DKW 86 7,946]

3 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i am not kidding. if liz runs and makes it i will look at her hard. i think she loves her country and is honest. we i m4 can you actually say trump sucks? just curious. i pick at you regularly but i admire your willingness to realize he was not what you thought. and his thug son just posted a picture of the dem judges daughter which i am not too happy about. he is giving idiots a target and if one thing happens to that young lady i hope he gets thrown under the jail. i am pretty sure he is a drug addict.i was some pics where his eyes were bleeding almost they were so red from coke. and not the sipping kind. i would bet my house he is. i have seen so many druggies come and go over the years playing in bands or just being in bars. or dennis k if he runs again.

Dennis K? as in Kucinich?