I don't know much about election law. If the hush payments had been made by Trump's campaign committee, would they have been legal campaign expenditures?
-
-
-
Related: have there been any legal developments between 2011 (when you wrote it would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Edwards et al. were guilty of a crime) and the present that make it more clear?
-
Final unsolicited question: are there some things that can't be bought with campaign money, because they aren't legitimate campaign expenses, but are nonetheless "contributions" if a third party pays for them to help a candidate?
-
Pipping in: from knowing ppl on the Edwards trial, the issue was that the heiress who made the pmts could have done it to make charismatic Edwards happy. As I recollect, the jury disapproved of Edwards’ conduct, but didn’t think it was a campaign contribution.
-
I'm not suggesting there is any direct contradiction, even in what Prof. H. wrote then and now. But there was at least some evidence, back then, that the donor wanted to pay for things "that would help the election" like the haircut.
-
So maybe the difference is back then we couldn't tell whether the election the main reason or just a subsidiary one, whereas here it is easier to draw the line
-
I feel like my post sounds like a "gotcha" and that's not how I meant it. I'm genuinely curious whether there are forbidden "contributions" (if done with intent to influence election) that are nonetheless impermissible as campaign expenditures. E.g., a nice haircut.
-
I genuinely don’t know beyond following the Edwards trial. That’s why we have election law specialists.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.