Monday, May 7, 2018

Legal Geek No. 134: Giuliani Brews Up a Storm(y) about Campaign Finance Laws

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we review the media blitz Rudy Giuliani has been on in the previous week as an attorney for President Trump, and explain why his comments regarding payments to Stormy Daniels don't paint a full picture of the issues surrounding the administration on this issue.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp134


If you aren't up to speed on the sideshow that is the Stormy Daniels story, here's a brief overview.  Stormy Daniels is an adult film star who apparently had an affair with Donald Trump about a decade ago.  Daniels was paid $130,000 in late 2016 just before the election by Trump's attorney Michael Cohen to keep her from reporting the affair to news outlets at that time.  As the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election led by special counsel Robert Mueller works through the process of investigating Cohen and others, this payout and the affair have become public knowledge and a source of debate of potential crimes or violations they may reveal.

Coming back to this week, Rudy Giuliani took to the cable TV news airwaves with many appearances and statements regarding the Stormy Daniels payout and his take on it.  Here's his quote regarding potential campaign finance violations:

INSERT QUOTE

Campaign finance law is a field with ever-changing parameters, as the Supreme Court often weighs in on the laws and regulations applied by the Federal Elections Commission or FEC.  Limits on individual contributions to a political campaign are set forth in Section 30116 of Title 52 of the U.S. Code, and there's a duty to report any payments made to or on behalf of a campaign so that voters can be sure who follows the fairness rules.  That latter point is where the debate will hinge.

According to Section 30116, all contributions made by a person, directly or indirectly, on behalf of a particular candidate, shall be treated as contributions from such person to the candidate, even if an intermediary is involved in some manner.  Daniels's attorney is making a public case that the payment from Michael Cohen to her was inherently related to Trump's campaign given the timing shortly before the election and the broad language of the law at hand.  Cohen certainly made the payment as an agent of Trump, and he's since been reimbursed by Trump for the payment to Daniels.  It's not as simple as Giuliani claims because the law clearly covers more than just movement of actual campaign funds.

If this hush money payment does qualify as a contribution under campaign finance laws, then it should have been disclosed.  Furthermore, there are criminal penalties for knowing or willful failures to report such contributions.  So there's a lot left to untangle in the facts surrounding Cohen and his payment to Daniels, as well as the knowledge and intent of Cohen and Trump, as there are big differences depending on whether Daniels approached Cohen to extort a payment or Cohen voluntarily sought out Daniels.

Of course, even if the FEC finds this to be a violation of campaign finance laws, another hurdle to cross is whether President Trump can actually be sued or held liable while in the executive branch.  Presidential immunity may not go so far as to protect from a lawsuit of this variety, but it would be a question of first impression at the courts if it occurs.

The Bottom Line is, Campaign finance laws are in place to allow voters to have a fair and full picture of the candidates they cast ballots for.  By obfuscating how the law actually reads and is applied, Giuliani is trying to paint a positive picture for his client Trump.  But his oversimplifications and misstatements will likely not carry the day at the FEC.  What's more interesting than the salacious nature of this affair or the one-sided comments of Giuliani is the potential effect of this issue on the Trump Administration.  While this by itself is likely not enough to remove Trump from office, it's one of a number of factors that could combine into an avalanche should something like the Russia investigation produce more problems.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

No comments:

Post a Comment