Source: TheHollywoodReporter.com
The article published in the Wall Street Journal details the current questions arising from the Stormy Daniels scandal which pertain to Trump potentially breaking campaign finance law through his lawyer’s payment to Daniels.
First, it is important to understand what led to the possible breaking of campaign finance law by the Trump Campaign. Adult film star, Stephanie Clifford, who goes by the name of Stormy Daniels claims that she first met Donald Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in 2006 and from then on the two had an ‘on and off’ affair. Daniels even claims that she was with Trump when he received a call from Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. After Trump cut off ties with Daniels as to not damage his political future, Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid Daniels $130,000 to stay silent about their affair.
Second, it is important to understand how these actions taken by Cohen and potentially by Trump would have broken campaign finance law. According to the Federal Election Commission, all contributions made to a candidate from an individual or group must not exceed $5,400 per election cycle and a payment of $130,000 well exceeds this limit. However, there is also question raised as to if this payment was used to influence the 2016 election. The FEC states that contributions to campaigns are, “anything of value” that could influence an election. Many argue that the $130,000 paid by Cohen was used to maintain Trump’s reputation as to not damage his image just 12 days before Election Day.
Third, the Trump Administration has remained on the defensive under this scrutiny. One important question that needs to be answered is if Trump’s payment was related to the election which was coming in 12 days or if the payment would have been done to protect Trump’s reputation even if he wasn’t a presidential candidate. The Trump administration argues not only that the funds were not used to influence the election, but also that Trump was never made aware of this payment till he started paying Cohen back in increments of $35,000 in February of 2016. It is also arguable that since Trump is paying Cohen back for his payments to Daniels that the initial ‘hush money’ could be deemed a personal expense.
Though there are many questions left unanswered, Michael Cohen’s recent guilty plea could bring even more damage to the Trump Administration in regards to this controversy. I believe that Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels did break current campaign finance law. The payment's close proximity to the election clearly shows that Cohen's payment was of value to the Trump campaign since if the story did break, many of Trump's core supporters could have their opinions shift with the news of an affair. While the Trump campaign argues that this payment would have been made if he wasn't running for President, Trump never paid other women such as Marla Maples with whom he had an affair to remain silent.
In my next blog post I will research the question: What actions is the government currently taking to make stronger campaign finance laws?
No comments:
Post a Comment