I'm A Campaign Finance Lawyer: 'Orange Man Bad' Is Not A Legal Theory
You probably heard the news: Convicted felon and self-styled "Fixer" Michal Cohen is going to Capitol Hill. There, he will peddle his personal fiction about campaign finance violations before a giddy liberal mob.
Don't confuse it for reality. The Democrats may embrace "Orange Man Bad" as a legal theory, but that does not mean the Trump campaign violated federal campaign finance laws in 2016. I'm a campaign finance lawyer in Washington, D.C., and I'm here to tell you: President Trump did not break campaign finance law.
The most common liberal talking point, though, is that the Trump campaign violated federal campaign finance laws in 2016. I'm a campaign finance lawyer in Washington, D.C., and I'm here to tell you: President Trump did not break campaign finance law.Campaign Finance Violations?
But, but, Stormy Daniels? Nope:
1. The alleged $130,000 pay-off to a blackmailing prostitute in no way constitutes a legitimate use of campaign funds — not least of all because no one would argue that you could use campaign funds for it. More importantly, that particular expense would exist irrespective of the President Trump's 2016 campaign. In fact, it is the same kind of transaction undertaken countless times for the purposes of corporate brand protection. "Trump" is a brand, and protecting that brand is par for the course in Big Business — just like it is for Coca-Cola or United Airlines.2. If the expense cannot possibly be a campaign expense, then it cannot be a violation of Federal Election Commission (FEC) reporting rules to not report an expense that isn't campaign-related. Regulating personal expenses does not fall under the FEC's jurisdiction. No campaign finance lawyer worth his or her salt would argue otherwise. In fact, the FEC had the chance to weigh in on whether a candidate's family business (with their name on it) could run ads for the business during the campaign—and they deadlocked.
Read the full article at Investor's Business Daily.