Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
The FEC has a whole page discussing in-kind contributions to campaigns from candidates.
Candidates can pay for campaign expenditures with personal funds. When these expenditures are not to be reimbursed, the committee reports them as in-kind contributions from the candidate. The committee also reports ultimate payee (i.e., the vendor) for the expenditure.
...
For example, if Donald Trump took a five dollar bill out of his own pocket, money that has never been given to the campaign, has never touched the campaign books in any way, it is his money from his own personal income, and spent it on a lawn sign that he puts on the lawn in front of his own house, I do not believe that this would trigger any reporting requirements. Do you agree/disagree?
That is correct, but that's because there is a minimum dollar amount of $200 before candidate campaign expenditures become reportable in-kind contributions.
Binding Supreme Court precedent says the opposite (unless you have something further that you meant to imply but didn't actually state). For example, I could take money out of my pocket right now and spend it on something that I think would influence the election (e.g., a lawn sign promoting a candidate), and that is absolutely legal.
I should have clarified, if Cohen makes this payment in coordination with Trump and his campaign it is unlawful. If Cohen did this spontaneously, of his own volition, it would be no issue.
What would make it a campaign expenditure? You need to spell out what the test is. Not an "if", because that is the precise question that I'm requesting an answer to and the crux of the issue.
I did not have a specific hypo in mind but the FEC page on day to day operations gives meals as something that can conditionally be a campaign expenditure.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
Right. That's why a bunch of Cohen's testimony, texts, emails, etc were about establishing the motive to pay off Daniels was campaign related. It was Cohen's belief that Trump kept putting off paying Daniels because he hoped he could until after the election, when it wouldn't matter if she went public. That is the perspective of someone concerned about the story's impact on the campaign, not the perspective of someone who didn't want it to get out irrespective of the campaign.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
To be clear, here are my thoughts on how this could have been structured lawfully. My reference is the FEC guidance on contributions and the FEC's definition of expenditures.
1. Trump pays Daniels himself. If Trump paid Daniel for the purpose of influencing the election it's an in-kind campaign contribution from the candidate to the campaign. The campaign has to report it in their FEC filings but this is otherwise legal. If Trump would have paid Daniel whether or not he was campaigning for president he doesn't have to report anything.
2. Cohen pays Daniels. If Cohen would have made this payment independent of the election (ignoring the crimes Cohen committed to get the money) it would be legal. If Cohen made this payment to influence the election I'm not sure there's any way to do it legally. The FEC guidance indicates individual in-kind campaign contributions can be converted into campaign operating expenses by reimbursement but also says they are considered in-kind contributions until the reimbursement happens. Since the contribution was way in excess of the limit it would seem to be an unlawful contribution from the beginning.
How do you see significant daylight between "Trump pays Daniels directly out of his personal funds," and, "Trump pays Daniels indirectly out of his personal funds," for purposes of campaign finance law? Statutory cites would be ideal, but even an FEC interpretation would be interesting.
It depends on what is in the "indirectly." If the indirect payment involves someone else making an unlawful in-kind campaign contribution it would be a campaign finance violation (though not for Trump). Trump isn't charged with any campaign violations in the instant case anywyay.
Trump doesn't have his wallet on him, so Cohen buys him lunch, then Trump pays him back later out of his personal funds. Surely, you would agree that this is not a campaign finance charge, yes? What then converts it into a campaign finance charge?
If the lunch was a campaign expenditure and they did not report it or the amount was in excess of the legal maximum it could be a campaign finance charge.
Suppose Trump/Cohen were at a vendor, planning to complete a sale of a bunch of red TRUMP 2024 yard signs that Trump plans to distribute. Trump's plan is to pay for this from his personal funds, but he forgot his wallet, so Cohen pays for it, and Trump pays him back when they get back to his house.
If the initial amount of the payment was in excess of the legally allowable maximum for in-kind contributions I think this would be a violation as I describe in (2). If it were below that amount I believe Trump's reimbursement converts Cohen's in-kind contribution into a candidate in-kind contribution.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
What crimes did they commit? The only person in Trump's case convicted of (pleaded guilty to) campaign finance violations was Michael Cohen, because he gave an illegally large in-kind contribution. Trump's crime is a New York state charge for falsifying business records.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
Sure. If the Trump campaign had reimbursed Cohen and lied about what it was for they plausibly also would have paid a fine. Instead Trump had his New York business falsify documents to reimburse Cohen.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
Hillary Clinton was fined 100k for improperly reporting expenses on the dossier as legal expenses.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
Maybe I am not understanding. You say it has nothing to do with Cohen's case, but then say the appeals court has to decide whether Cohen committed a crime. That seems pretty related to Cohen's case!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
Why is this Cohen paying off Stormy Daniels with hush money so she doesn't hurt Trump's reputation for campaign an illegal campaign contribution?
Because it was undertaken with the purpose of influencing the election and in coordination with a candidate in that election.
If Cohen declared himself a PAC would he not be able to spend money on Trump's "mistresses" on his behalf?
If he had done so without any coordination with Trump then probably. PACs aren't supposed to coordinate directly with campaigns, that could be its own violation.
Is the special code words weren't evoked the problem? Frankly why can't trump pay off women as a campaign expense? What about a personal expense?
He arguably could pay them off as a campaign expense. If Trump had paid Daniels directly, out of either campaign or personal funds, that would likely have been legal. If Cohen made the payment and Trump reimbursed Cohen out of campaign funds that also might have been legal (it converts Cohen's campaign contribution into an operation expense). But if Trump did any of that he'd have to report the payment to the FEC, which he didn't want to do.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
The analysis I've read seem to indicate the most likely outcome, since Trump is a first time offender and the felony is non-violent, will be some amount of probation.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
It is Trump's position, as his lawyer argued both in the court of appeals and to SCOTUS, that if a President ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival such President could not be charged with a crime unless impeached and removed.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
Not accurate... how? He didn't plead guilty to those crimes?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
But Citizens United was about whether those particular defendants had committed a crime. The analogy is Cohen appealing his conviction. What's the citation for a case where some person A is appealing their conviction and a court decides some other person B has not committed a crime they pleaded guilty to?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
I guess I'm wondering what this looks like. Is the idea that the NY prosecutor is going to have prove Cohen guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Skeptical that's the actual standard.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
His motivation doesn't have to be solely the campaign for it to be a campaign contribution. If Cohen made a campaign expenditure on behalf of or in coordination with a campaign, then it was a campaign contribution.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
Yes. Lots of things can be a crime if entity A does them but not if entity B does them. If Trump had paid Daniels (and maybe Cohen) out of his own pocket there would have been no crime. The crime is entirely in how he went about it.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
It means that Trump knew about the reimbursement Cohen. Coming from his business. And presumably how it was booked. If there was also no retainer or other legal work Cohen had done (and Trump knew that) it goes to his intent to commit fraud.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
It does seem like there ought to be further tax charges, under either NY or federal law. Not sure what you mean with the FEC review. The FEC definitely thought Cohen committed a crime but I don't think there's an allegation that Trump's conduct was an FEC-enforceable violation.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
According to who? The prosecution?
The prosecution, yes, but also according to Cohen, Packard, and others who were negotiating the deal at the time.
This is a novel argument: personal money you spend on personal causes makes you a better candidate, so it counts as a campaign contribution! There is no limiting principle here, because it's a silly argument that has never been used before. Even your quotation of the SEC shows the distinction: according to the prosecution, the payment wasn't made by Trump's campaign but by Trump himself.
Let's not get confused. There are two payments here. Cohen's payment to Daniels was an unlawful campaign contribution by the FEC definition. It exceeded the allowed limits and was made on behalf of and in coordination with the candidate. If Trump had made that payment himself it would not be a crime because he can spend as much as he wants on his own campaign. Trump's payments to Cohen may also not have been problematic if Trump made them directly, but he paid them through his business instead and lied about what they were for.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
I still haven't seen a decent theory for why this payment is specifically for the campaign, while it would seemingly be perfectly legal any other day of the week for a Totally Upstanding Well-Known Businessperson and Public Figure.
My understanding is that the motivation for it was specifically the impact it could have on voters, especially so close to the election (the payment was in late October). Rather than some general concern about Trump's image. I believe this specific concern is memorialized in contemporaneous communication by Cohen, Packard, and others.
Is it shady? Absolutely, but "running for office limits your otherwise-available personal publicity campaigning" seems a bit questionable under the generally-favored strict scrutiny for free speech questions. Which is part of why Citizens United came down the way it did: the government claimed then-extant election funding rules allowed them to ban books.
As I mention in my original comment the manner in which Trump went about it is probably the whole issue. If he had decided to pay off Daniels out of his own funds there is probably no crime.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
If Trump paid back Cohen, then Cohen no longer made a campaign contribution since he was acting as Trump’s agent… it also isn’t close to clear that cohen made a campaign contribution
This is not how the FEC understands campaign contributions:
Similarly, when a person pays for goods or services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate.
Now, a campaign can transform an in-kind contribution into an operating expense by reimbursing the person making the in-kind contribution, but the Trump campaign never did that. Cohen was reimbursed by the Trump organization instead.
It seems really weird you are arguing Trump exposed himself to criminal liability to try to help Cohen…
I mean, it helped himself too. Otherwise Daniel (or Cohen) might have gone public much earlier to unknown effect.
Also you have zero evidence connecting Trump to this scheme except the partial testimony of Cohen (he doesn’t even testify to all needed elements) with no corroboration. So you are using the word of a serial perjurer to send someone potentially to jail.
This is not correct. Trump himself signed some of the reimbursement checks to Cohen.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
I mean, maybe there's an argument Michael Cohen could have made that his conduct was not criminal, that the statute criminalizing it was unconstitutional. I am skeptical any court is going to get into that matter separately.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5mo ago
Why is paying Stormy Daniels a campaign contribution?
Because the purpose of the payment was to benefit the campaign. According to the FEC
Similarly, when a person pays for goods or services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate.
...
Why doed Cohen pleading guilty prove Trump committed a crime too?
Perhaps I have not followed the trial closely enough but it is not clear to me, from reading the actual NY law at issue, that the crime being covered up has to also have been committed by the person doing the covering up. If A enters false business records to cover up B's crime it seems to me that would be covered. It does not seem to be required that A's false business records cover up A's own crime, but I could be wrong about that.
Please note that campaign finance violations are the FEC's wheelhouse and they neglected to pursue charges because no crime occurred. Besides, this is circular reasoning: Trump committed a crime because Cohen committed a crime because Trump committed a crime. Under this logic, any politician who has ever paid to bury a story has committed a crime.
This is not correct. Cohen committed a crime (an illegal campaign contribution) and then Trump committed a crime (falsifying business records) to cover up Cohen's crime. As I note in my comment if Trump had paid Daniels himself it likely would not have been a crime, because candidates are allowed to spend as much as they want on their own campaigns.
Right, that's the thing: this is a totally normal thing that happens to powerful people all the time, only New York blew it up to try to make it a get Trump case. There is no case here.
I think that depends on what you mean by "this." I do not think it is that common that powerful people get their lawyers to commit bank fraud and FEC violations to help them get elected, then commit further crimes to try and cover it up. Heck, if Trump had paid Cohen back out of his own pocket (rather than his business) that probably wouldn't have been a crime either! Or at least it wouldn't have been this crime.
I don't know. I think the analysis is more fact intensive than you present here. Distinguish two cases.
In the first case Trump wants a new suit for whatever reason. Maybe he thinks all his current ones are ugly, he ruined his favorite one, whatever. So he and Cohen go suit shopping. Trump happens to be a candidate and there's a debate coming up so they do the discussion you mention about how various suits might look. Ultimately Trump picks one and Cohen pays for it. The debate ends up cancelled and Trump keeps the suit.
In the second case candidate Trump has a debate coming up. He doesn't think any of his current suits will look good enough on the debate stage so he decides to buy a new one. He and Cohen go suit shopping. They have the same discussion about suits and how effective they might appear. Trump picks one and Cohen pays for it. The debate ends up cancelled. Trump gives the suit back to Cohen to return since he no longer needs it.
I think the first case is probably not a campaign contribution but the second case probably is a campaign contribution. The "irrespective" criteria is fulfilled in the first in a way it isn't in the second.
More options
Context Copy link