Why hush money Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels was an illegal campaign donation
Bill TheobaldWASHINGTON – Confused about how hush money payments orchestrated by Michael Cohen to protect President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign can be considered violations of campaign finance laws?
Join the club.
While some people are perplexed, others – including Trump – say the campaign charges are no big deal. Or they play the "what about" game and claim that President Barack Obama did the same thing.
Campaign finance experts Meredith McGehee, executive director of Issue One, a government reform group, and Erin Chlopak, senior legal counsel for campaign finance at the Campaign Legal Center, say the laws Cohen admitted to violating are fundamental to the proper function of fair elections.
They also helped answer some basic questions about the campaign finance charges against Cohen and the implications of those charges for Trump.
What campaign finance laws did Cohen plead guilty to violating?
Cohen was charged with violating the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The law limits donations by individuals to $2,700 per election. It also bans corporations from making any contributions to candidates.
What were the payments?
There were two: $150,000 was given to former Playboy model Karen McDougal in the summer and early fall of 2016, and $130,000 went to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in late October 2016.
Why are the hush money payments considered illegal campaign contributions?
Because Cohen admitted that the payments were intended to protect Trump's election chances, they are deemed to be in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign.
They exceed the donation limits, a violation, and neither was included in campaign finance reports, another violation.
Why are they considered corporate contributions if Cohen arranged the deals?
Because in at least the case of the McDougal payoff, American Media Inc., the corporate parent of the National Enquirer, provided the money.
What is the intent of these laws?
The two goals are reducing corruption and improving transparency. Large payments from individuals and corporations to candidates increase the chance that something is demanded in return. And listing donors and how candidates spend their money on publicly available reports allows citizens to judge candidates in those two areas.
Didn't the Citizens United case allow unlimited donations and spending by campaigns?
No. The case did allow individuals and corporations to give unlimited amounts to Super PACs. They, in turn, are allowed to spend unlimited amounts in support or opposition to a candidate as long as that spending is not coordinated with the candidate or his or her campaign committee.
Most campaign finance violations are handled as civil cases. Why are these criminal charges?
Because Cohen admitted that he violated these laws "knowingly and willfully."
Is Trump guilty of a crime related to this?
He has not been charged. And it is unlikely he would be while in office given the Justice Department policy against charging sitting presidents. To win a case against Trump would require proving the standard of "knowingly and willfully." Trump has said in recent days he didn't know about the payments and described the Daniels case as a "simple private transaction," though Cohen says his former boss directed the payments.
Could Trump be impeached based on his alleged involvement with Cohen in the payments?
Yes, but. What constitutes a "high crime and misdemeanor" – the legal standard for impeachment – is left to Congress to decide. But even Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has said he doubts the campaign finance charges alone could be serious enough.
Is what the Obama campaign was fined for the same issue or something different?
Something different. The Obama campaign paid a civil fine of $375,000 imposed by the Federal Election Commission after his 2008 campaign did not turn in reports for about 1,300 last-minute donations that totaled nearly $1.9 million. No criminal charges were filed.
