AUBURN, AL- As speculation swirls regarding President Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen and the raid that took place on his records, pontification over whether the $130,000 payment he made to Stormy Daniels could be ruled a campaign finance violation has exploded.
Most, including us here at Take Back, have expressed concern- though it remains to be seen what kind of damage that would do to the Trump presidency. But one expert, former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith, who served on the commission from 2000 until 2005, has no problem with the payment.
Below is an excerpt from an interview between Smith and radio personality Mark Levin as written by the Daily Wire:
“‘Here’s the bottom line,” Smith told Levin. “The purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one-way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You can’t use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.”
He said, “And the FEC standard for that is you can’t use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you can’t use that for something you’d have to pay anyway that’s not directly for your campaign. The question is, ‘is this really a campaign obligation?’”
Professor Smith continued, “None of these expenditures helped Mr. Trump’s campaign. There’s all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.’”
For the full article, see here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/29365/former-fec-chairman-mark-levin-stormy-daniels-jacob-airey?utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=041318-news&utm_campaign=position1.
Now, the assertion that a payment made to a porn star to cover up an alleged affair mere days before an election in which the candidate was struggling to overcome similar accusations was NOT an assist to the campaign is somewhat suspect. But, Smith does have insight into FEC operations and history. Also, given that the payment was made from a personal attorney in that capacity- regardless of the timing- does muddy the waters making this an intriguing storyline to follow.