Trump has not violated campaign finance laws, and here's whyAmerican Thinker, Aug 22, 2018, Ed Straker
[...]
Cohen's plea deal states that Cohen violated campaign finance laws by making payments to one of Trump's alleged mistresses, "Stormy Daniels", and made payments to the National Enquirer to compensate the Enquirer for paying off another of Trump's alleged mistresses. Cohen, in turn was reimbursed by Trump for these expenses, so Trump was the ultimate source of the money for these payments.
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, Title 52, United States Code Section 30101 states in part that individuals are limited to making donations of $2,700 to presidential candidates. Cohen is accused of spending money in violation of the Act. Although Cohen spent more than $2,700 on behalf of Trump, he was reimbursed by Trump,
so Trump was ultimately spending money on himself, and there is no limit on how much a person may spend on their own presidential campaign, so this section does not apply.The Campaign Act also prohibits corporations from contributing directly to presidential campaigns. Cohen set up dummy corporations to make the payments and pled to making improper corporate donations. But again, although the money technically came from corporations, ultimately,
all the money came from Donald Trump, so again these limitations do not apply.
But more importantly,
this was not a campaign expenditure at all. Constitutional scholar Mark Levin has interviewed former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith repeatedly on his show over the past year, and Smith has made the point that "dual use" expenditures are not "campaign expenditures" under the meaning of the Act. [...]
Payments to President Trump's alleged mistresses to stay silent certainly benefitted his campaign. But they also served the purpose of not embarrassing the President's family. There clearly was a dual use to the payments, therefore they were not "campaign expenditures" under the act. If they were, then everything a candidate spent money on during the course of a campaign, whether of a personal nature or not, would have to be reported as a campaign expenditure. Does a candidate eat during a campaign? Well, if so that benefits his campaign and so must be an expenditure! Do you see how ridiculous this can become?
Read more:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/trump_has_not_violated_campaign_finance_laws_and_heres_why.html
