Posted on 04/11/2018 5:48:33 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
Former Commissioner, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Bradley A. Smith:
Hush money looks like a personal expense. Treating it as a political one would create a bad precedent.
When you stretch the law to “get” a political opponent, it’s rarely possible to return the law to its original shape. Which brings us to Stormy Daniels.
Shortly before the 2016 election, one of President Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen, arranged a $130,000 payment to the porn star in return for silence about a 2006 affair she claimed to have had with Mr. Trump. (Both the president and Mr. Cohen have denied the affair; Mr. Trump has said he did not know of the payment to Ms. Daniels until this February.)
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
".. campaign money can`t be used for personal use...( it is not a direct, in-kind contribution)...these are not in-kind contributions as intended by FEC law...not specifically defined...stretching laws to get somebody..."
WSJ: .. Not satisfied with an old-fashioned sex scandal—perhaps because the president seems impervious to that—some want to turn this into a violation of campaign-finance law. Trevor Potter, a former member of the Federal Election Commission told “60 Minutes” the payment was “a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give.” The FBI raided Mr. Cohen’s office, home and hotel room Monday. They reportedly seized records related to the payment and are investigating possible violations of campaign-finance laws.
But let’s remember a basic principle of such laws: Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense.
Campaign-finance law aims to prevent corruption. For this reason, the FEC has a longstanding ban on “personal use” of campaign funds. Such use would give campaign contributions a material value beyond helping to elect the candidate—the essence of a bribe.
FEC regulations explain that the campaign cannot pay expenses that would exist “irrespective” of the campaign, even if it might help win election. At the same time, obligations that would not exist “but for” the campaign must be paid from campaign funds
If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds. 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.
When the FEC adopted these regulations, it specifically rejected a rule under which campaign contributions could fund an expenditure “related to” a candidacy. The FEC was concerned that would make it too easy for candidates to use campaign funds for personal benefit. Personal debts, for example, are “related to” the campaign—if unpaid, the candidate’s reputation might suffer. A Rolex watch, a new suit, or a haircut might help a candidate look good on the trail.
If the Trump Organization paid bonuses to employees, it might improve Mr. Trump’s image, helping his re-election prospects. Could those bonuses be paid with campaign funds? Every charitable expenditure made by the Clinton Foundation arguably assisted Hillary’s run for president. Campaign expenditures? The Clintons famously conducted polls on where to vacation. The polls were probably campaign expenses, but how about the trips?
And how about Stormy? There are many reasons, including personal and commercial ones, why Mr. Trump might want to keep allegations of extramarital affairs out of the press. Ms. Daniels claims that when she first tried to sell her story in 2011, she was threatened by a man in a Las Vegas parking lot: “Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.” If true, it shows that her silence was desired long before Mr. Trump ran. The New Yorker published a story claiming to provide “a detailed look at how Trump and his allies used clandestine hotel-room meetings, payoffs, and complex legal agreements to keep affairs . . . out of the press.” If true, this also suggests a pattern outside the campaign.
Campaign contributions should not become politicians’ personal slush funds. 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. Some matters are for voters to decide.
I do not want to hear another word of this bull shit. Bill Clinton took millions in defense and sexual assault stettlement funds. We will not tolerate this crap!! We are heading towards a civil war. A bloody civil war IMO!!
They want to get their OPPONENTS' money "out of politics."
-
John Edwards gave a $1 Million dollars in what they called “Hush money.”
Edwards knew of the campaign finance limits.
There was a Sex tape - and he paid for that to be hushed, too, and destroyed.
The FEC ruled that Edwards’ “Hush” money, they actually called it Hush money, was NOT a violation.
That’s right.
.
Thanks for reminding us of that. I’d totally forgotten it.
Trump said he told the lawyer to take care of it. That’s it!
Dirty political money is killing this country. Every time the government calls for reform, it always gets worse or there is always a loop hole. Illegal voting and campaign finance reform needs to end now or it may just end with a Civil War.
Campaign finance laws are supposed to be about the candidate TAKING money, not GIVING money I thought! This sounds more like Trump was BLACKMAILED to me.
[also from today’s Levin show, phone call from a listener]
Didn’t we just have some $150 million in taxpayer funds go to some sort of slush fund that settled all the outstanding complaints against members of Congress for sexual misconduct; round about the time of the Al Franken resignation?
Are those in-kind campaign contributions as well?
Clinton settled with Paula Jones for $850,000 after Judge Susan Weber-Wright dismissed the case saying boorish behavior did not amount to harassment.
Times change.
What is the authority for Federal laws or Federal Commissions governing the methods State Legislatures use to appoint Electors for President and Vice President?
Congress has the power to regulate elections for the House and for the Senate, it’s right in Article I §4.
But the appointment of Electors is a State, not a Federal process. How then can there be Federal laws regulating the methods used by the states for this important state responsibility?
I wish they would stop calling it an affair. A one night stand is not an affair.
You use logic. Unfortunately, logic does not apply here, because, apparently, we are living in a Franz Kafka novel.
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.