Which is why I specifically asked for a hypothetical instead of some generalization. The flaw with the generalization here is that it assumes ANY expenditure by a political candidate can be construed as a campaign expense. You bought a new suit? Felony for not properly disclosing it. You paid off back taxes? Felony for not properly disclosing it. You got your private jet repainted? Felony for not properly disclosing it. You got your daughter's braces replaced with clear ones that are less unsightly? Felony for not properly disclosing it. Dyed your hair? Felony for not properly disclosing it. Donated money to Toys for Tots? Felony for not properly disclosing it.
Each and every one of these could be construed as a campaign donation if we are to use the very loose (and unequally applied) definition posed by liberals in this case. Of course Democrats can continue to hand out bags of cash (i.e. "street money") to get out the vote, and not one of these same liberals even remotely suggests that there is anything illegal about that.
We've known forever that these types of laws can, and are, used as weapons and not for the reasons we're told they're needed. Usually they're used against us peons, so it delights me a bit when they are used against the muckity mucks that foist them upon us. Besides that, if the muckity mucks are too stupid to see what is happening and do something about it, they deserve what they get.
The problem isn't that the vague law is being used against Trump, the problem is that the law is there to begin with.
