The AP doesn’t think so. They claim “any payments made ‘for the purpose of influencing’ an election” violate campaign finance law (notice how they play with the language).
“Influencing an election” that sure covers a lot of ground-in fact as much ground as prosecutors think it should cover. Now the common sense interpretation would be money used directly to influence voters as in campaign ads, mail outs, and rallies. Since it is difficult to show that a NDA which was not known by the voters could have swayed their decision and influenced their vote. So just who did the agreement influence? The only people it influenced would be the people directly parties to that agreement.