Brad Smith Profile picture
Jun 1 24 tweets 4 min read Read on X
Let's take a stab... Falsifying business records under NY law is a misdemeanor, unless done to hide a crime. Bragg says that crime was a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), or of a NY statute making it illegal to influence an election by "unlawful" means./1
But if the latter, what is the "unlawful means?" An alleged violation of FECA. So it comes down to FECA. There are two potential violations here. One is acceptance of an unlawful contribution by the campaign. The other is incorrect reporting of a contribution by the campaign. /2
Either way, we have to have a campaign contribution. That allegedly occurred when Cohen advanced money to pay the Stormy Daniels settlement. FECA defines a contribution as any payment made "for the purpose of influencing an election." The 2016 max legal contribution was $2700. /3
This looks bad for Trump--it's pretty easy to conclude the payment was made to influence the election by buying Daniels' silence, right? And Cohen paid Daniels $130K, way over the limit. Well, it's not so simple. /4
1st, let's clear up something. Cohen just loaned the money--he was paid back and then some. So where, some ask, is the contribution? But this is not a winner for Trump--under the law a "contribution" includes a loan, unless made in the ordinary course of business (e.g. a bank) /5
But, for context, note that there is no limit on how much Trump can contribute to his own campaign. By Oct 27, when Daniels was paid, Trump had already spent >$60 million of his own $$ on the campaign. It would have been easy for him to toss in another $130K. /6
Now, back to that definition of "contribution." If they bought Daniels silence to "influence an election"--what the prosecution alleged--isn't that a "contribution?" (And also a campaign "expenditure," which mirrors the contribution definition?) Well, no. /7
1st, Common Sense. We know that a campaign expense is not literally any payment made "for the purpose of influencing an election," and reading the statute that way would be WAY too broad. For example, in 1999, Bill & Hillary Clinton bought a house in New York. /8
One reason they did so was that Hillary could run for U.S. Senate from New York. In other words, the expenditure was clearly done, in part, "for the purpose of influencing an election." Is it a campaign expenditure under FECA? Of course not. Common sense. /9
How about if a would-be candidate pays a lawyer to seal old divorce records, because he is afraid that, if revealed, they would be damaging to his candidacy. Campaign expense? No, clearly not--even though done "for the purpose of influencing an election." /10
Or suppose a business owner wants to settle pending lawsuits against his business before running for Congress. He think the lawsuits are BS--but he's afraid the press will make a big deal of the allegations. Can he pay the settlements with campaign funds? /11
The answer, obviously, is no--even though there is no legal obligation to pay them, and the settlements would be paid specifically to "influence an election." In fact, in each of these examples, it would be unlawful to make the payments with campaign funds. /12
This is because FECA also prohibits using campaign funds for "personal use." What is "personal use?" Under Federal Election Commission regulations--and the FEC has primary authority-for interpreting the law-it is any obligation that would exist "irrespective" of the candidacy /13
Indeed the FEC regulations make clear that a mixed motive doesn't make something a campaign expense-if the obligation would exist "irrespective" of the campaign, paying it with campaign funds is "personal use," and therefore illegal. /14
Certainly Daniels used the campaign to pressure Trump and for the most $$ she could. The timing affected the *value* of her allegations, but the *obligation* did not exist because Trump was a candidate. It predated his candidacy, & was not created by him being a candidate. /15
Let's use common sense. Is it a "campaign" expense to pay for a non-disclosure agreement for something arising out of events 10 years earlier, and not caused by the act of being a candidate? Is paying "hush money" a campaign expense? Duh, no. /16
And we wouldn't want it to be. We don't want candidates using campaign funds to pay personal expenses, whether new clothes, a weight loss program, or a gym membership (purchased to help the candidate look better, and therefore "for the purpose of influencing an election.") /17
And certainly not to pay non-disclosure agreements to keep embarrassing info hidden. In summary, "for the purpose of influencing an election is an objective standard. The motive of the donor or spender doesn't matter. So what are expenditures? /18
Paying campaign staff is a campaign expenditure. Buying ads for the candidate. Paying fundraising costs. Paying a campaign accountant. Paying for polling. Travel to campaign events. Basicall, all the obligations you incur solely because you are campaigning for office. /19
The FEC's approach is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court, has consistently held, in every case since FECA was passed 50 years ago, that it's definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure" must be objective, not subjective, to avoid being unconstitutionally vague. /20
After all, almost any political act or communication could be considered a "campaign contribution" or "expenditure." Protesting "Genocide Joe" for Biden's Israel policy? That could, and could have the purpose of, influencing this fall's election. /21
If an environmental group advocates for green energy policies, is that a campaign contribution? Doing so could shape views on the issue, and so how people vote this fall--that might even be its purpose. Campaign contribution? Expenditure? /22
So none of these things violate FECA, even though they are what we would normally call "expenditures," and even though done "for the purpose of influencing an election." Again, its an objective standard. But none of this went to the jury, either as evidence or in instructions./23
Instead, the jury heard only from Michael Cohen and the prosecutors, who claimed this was clearly a violation of FECA. In a second thread, I'll explain why there was no FECA reporting violation. /24

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Brad Smith

Brad Smith Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CommishSmith

Nov 3
Not all Democrats favor or do all of these things, but all are supported by many prominent Democrats and large parts of the party:
1) vote against certifying electoral college votes in the last 3 GOP wins, including in states GOP won by >20 points;
2) Aggressively seek to keep Cornell West, Jill Stein, and even Donald Trump off ballots;
3) call for the abolition of the Electoral College, because they see it as a near-term obstacle to power, and support extra-constitutional means to effectively abolish the College;
Read 12 tweets
Jul 2
After carefully reviewing the recent batch of SCOTUS opinions, I have reached the following conclusions--most of which seem to go against the grain:
1. Presidents will not soon be ordering the assassination of their political opponents, at least not in large numbers;
1/4
2. You can be punished for breaking into the U.S. capitol;
3. Regulatory agencies will continue to employ thousands of expert (& non-expert) bureaucrats who will continue to exert remarkable control over our daily lives;
4. The President can be prosecuted for unofficial acts;
2/4
5. Giving defendants jury trials will not end all public safety regulations;
6. We will still have social media for the foreseeable future, with lots of opinions being expressed;
7. Just like the era from 1789 to 1984, agencies will manage to cope without Chevron deference;
3/4
Read 4 tweets
Jun 1
In another thread, , I explain why payments to Stormy Daniels were not a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In this thread, I'll explain why no FECA reporting obligations were violated, and why the prosecution's theory makes no sense. /1
M. Cohen testified that Trump wanted to keep Daniels allegations under wraps until after the election. Prosecutors claim they therefore illegally did not report the campaign expenditure, and by doing so intended to, and did, have "the purpose of influencing an election." /2
Presidential campaigns file monthly reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These are filed on the 20th of each month, and cover expenditures and contributions for the prior month. So in 2016, the Sep. report was filed 9/20, and covered expenditures made in August. /3
Read 11 tweets
May 20
Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance. /1
But the Federal Election Campaign Act is very complex. Even Antonin Scalia—a pretty smart guy, even you hate him—once said “this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out. /2
Picture a jury in a product liability case trying to figure out if a complex machine was negligently designed, based only on a boilerplate recitation of the general definition of “negligence.” They’d be lost without knowing technology & industry norms. /3
Read 11 tweets
Apr 2, 2023
/1 I appreciate @DavidAFrench and @whignewtons giving me an extended shoutout discussing the Trump indictment last week @thedispatch @advopinions. I want to take the FEC issue up again w/ David, because I respect him and because we'll need his pro-1st A. voice in future fights.
/2 David questions the wisdom of the indictment, but believes that federal campaign finance law was violated by Trump Org's payments to Stormy Daniels. And he's got a precedent on his side--the Dist. Ct. judge let basically the same theory go to trial in the John Edwards case.
/3 The theory is simple: Fed law defines a campaign contribution as anything "for the purpose of influencing" an election for federal office. Hush money pd. Daniels was "for the purpose of influencing" 2016 prez race, and so was an illegal and unreported campaign contribution.
Read 19 tweets
Sep 27, 2022
Early voting is already underway in many states. We're 6 weeks out from "election day." Early voting should be dramatically cut back; we should re-establish election day voting as the norm, and early and absentee voting as necessary but limited exceptions. Here's why: /1
What would you think if jurors started voting midway through the trial, before hearing all the evidence, and couldn't change their votes? In response, it's claimed that early voters are the hard core partisan who won't change their votes. /2
This leaves out that a) some might change on the basis of late information; and b) for elections such as township trustee, village council, etc. most candidates spend a few hundred dollars, and don't start campaigning until October. Let's give them time to knock on doors. /3
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(