Posted on 08/22/2018 9:43:50 AM PDT by gattaca
Payments used to silence people who have potentially damaging information on a political candidate cannot be classified as a campaign contribution, according to the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Bradley Smith.
“Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense,” Smith wrote in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal.
Bradley’s comments were published the day after the FBI raided the home, office, and hotel room of President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen. The FBI agents were specifically looking for payments Cohen made to silence two women who claim to have had affairs with Trump more than a decade ago. Trump and Cohen deny the allegations about the affairs.
Campaign finance laws state that candidates cannot use campaign funds for expenses that would exist irrespective of the campaign, Bradley explained. These laws were created to thwart bribery and to prevent candidates from misusing funds for their own benefit.
“Personal debts, for example, are ‘related to’ the campaign—if unpaid, the candidate’s reputation might suffer, Bradley wrote. “A Rolex watch, a new suit, or a haircut might help a candidate look good on the trail.”
While a candidate is prohibited from spending campaign funds on expenses merely related to the campaign, expenses on items and services which exist solely for the campaign, like bumper stickers and billboards, must be paid for with campaign funds.
“If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds,” Bradley said. “How ironic, given that using campaign funds as hush money was one of the articles of impeachment in the Watergate scandal, which gave rise to modern campaign-finance law.”
Cohen’s payment to the woman who claims to have had an affair with Trump would have to be paid with campaign funds if it is to be viewed as a campaign contribution. But paying someone to keep silent about an alleged extramarital affair is not an expense solely related to a campaign, Bradley explained.
Michael Cohen (L), President Donald Trump’s personal attorney on September 19, 2017 in Washington, DC. ( Wilson/Getty Images) “There are many reasons, including personal and commercial ones, why Mr. Trump might want to keep allegations of extramarital affairs out of the press,” Bradley wrote.
If the same loose interpretation of campaign finance laws were applied to Trump’s opponent in the election, Hillary Clinton, charitable spending by the Clinton Foundation could be viewed as benefiting her candidacy and would have to be considered a campaign expense, Bradley pointed out.
“Many ardent anti-Trumpers sincerely believe that the president is a threat to the rule of law. The real threat to the rule of law, however, comes from abusing laws to ‘get’ a political opponent,” Bradley concluded. “Some matters are for voters to decide.”
Guy makes too much sense. No wonder he’s a ‘former’.
The media gave hillary about a billion dollars worth of support in an attempt to influence the election.
I thought the definition of the word “contribution” meant the flow of funds went FROM THE COMMON CITIZEN to the politician and the surrounding engine. How does money flowing in the opposite direction count as a contribution TO the candidate?
Sorry: TO the citizen, not “TO the candidate”
It was not a contribution of ANYTHING!!! Irt was BILLED BY COHEN AND PAID BACK !! Wake up. It iS astounding to me what a lie this is. Watch this. You get a call from your lawyer that some old whore is extorting money because you are running for office and the election is in two weeks.ITS NOT TRUE but she will go public!! She is making a “legal” claim and has a scumbag lawyer but your lawyer says I fixed it with a settlement agreement “ By Check I hope” Yes ...... tape stops. Two weeks later here comes a legal bill for $150K —Did you know that lawyers advance costs for clients all the time? You pay the damned bill!!! That aint a campaign contribution!! Holly cow!!
But, he’s just the former Chairman of the Federal Elections Commission, what does he know? <<<sarcasm
The democrats, et.al. know this. Just another strategy to pile on the lies and deceptions. It strictly a hoax pulled out of thin air, just like the Russian collusion hoax.
The goal is to have an avalanche of lies to reach a critical point just before the election so that the lies are brought to front and center and extensively reviewed every time a defense is mounted thus confirming the lies.
Manfort’s troubles are irrelevant. Cohen is all that matters.
First and foremost Cohen’s claim that he was directed by Trump has no corroboration.
Davis claims that there is a wire transfer doc from Trump to Cohen, OK whoopdedoo.
Let’s not get lost here, paying off lovers is not at all illegal.
Hushing up those lovers benefits a candidate.
Real simple, any monies that benefit a candidate have to be disclosed.
That’s what potentially incriminates Trump if he can be shown to have directed the payoff......and.....directed the non-disclosure. Both issues have to be proven by the FEC to stick.
Can you hear it?
That’s the steam coming out of the Leftist bubble.
What are the chances that McCabe paid income taxes on the leftover campaign funds from his wife’s political contributions from Hillary? They would be taxable income.
Somebody please tell me what paying ‘hush’ money to women has to do with campaign contributions.
A former head of the FEC has stated that your claim here is completely unfounded regarding the payments to the women in question. I'll take his viewpoint over your uninformed opinion any day of the week.
Tell that to the media.
A candidate can spend his own money in unlimited amounts to promote his candidacy. If the government cannot limit it, why does it get to require disclosure of it????Just one more reason to understand that “Campaign Finance Reform” is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Of the five justices who affirmed McCain-Feingold via the McConnell v. FEC decision in 2002, only Ginsberg and Breyer still sit on SCOTUS (and only Thomas in the minority). O’Connor was the swing vote; Kennedy was in the minority in that case. SCOTUS has been more conservative after O’Connor’s resignation and, we trust, will be more so after Kennedy’s replacement is confirmed.
I so wish an FBI agent or two gets blown away during these no-knock break-ins of people guilty only of knowing PDJT.
I also want open warfare in the form of lawfare the rats use on us. Obama, Hillary, Rice, Lynch, Comey . . . the lot of them and their families ruined.
I can dream . . . of equality before the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.