International News
Is hush money campaign contribution?
U.S. President Donald Trump’s long-time lawyer Michael Cohen claimed last week that he paid $1,30,000 of his personal money to adult-film actor Stephanie Clifford in 2016, for her to keep mum on an alleged sexual encounter between her and Mr. Trump in 2006. Mr. Cohen said he used his own “personal funds”, and “neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction, and neither reimbursed” him for the payment.
The lawyer’s attempt has been to shield the President from charges of violating campaign contribution laws. But the disclosure has not ended the controversy, which is now less about the President’s liaison with the porn star than about the question whether hush money constitutes campaign contribution.
Violations of campaign contribution laws can have serious consequences in America. A transparency advocacy group called Common Cause is pursuing complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice that the payment to the actor was an “unreported in-kind contribution to President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign committee in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act”. The amount in question is 25 times more than the legally permitted contribution of $2,700.
Mr. Cohen claims the payment had nothing to do with the campaign. But interestingly enough, his clarification only denies reimbursement by the two organisations targeted in a legal complaint to the Federal Election Commission. It is unclear whether Mr. Trump himself reimbursed him or not.
A previous case
If the Federal Election Commission launches an investigation into the question, it could take years to conclude. Legal experts cite a previous case that dealt with a similar episode in the 2008 presidential campaign. Democratic Senator John Edwards faced charges that his wealthy friends paid nearly $1 million to cover up an affair he had with a videographer named Rielle Hunter.
In 2011, Mr. Edwards was indicted on charges that he accepted illegal campaign contributions in the form of payments that were made for travel, hotel, medical and housing expenses that Ms. Hunter, who was pregnant with Mr. Edward’s child, ran up. Even chartered flights were arranged to keep her pregnancy a secret. At Mr. Edwards’ trial, his lawyers argued that he was unaware of the payments and that the reason why he wanted to keep the affair secret was to avoid distress for his ailing wife. They argued that the efforts to cover up the affair had no political intention. Mr. Edwards was not convicted, as the jury could not arrive at any verdict on several counts.
Similarly, Mr. Cohen could argue that his intention was to not let Mr. Trump’s wife Melania Trump hear Ms. Clifford’s story, some legal experts have pointed out. Campaign funding impropriety could be proved only if it is established that the purpose of buying her silence was to influence the voters. Law defines campaign contribution as “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office”.
But the President has a more immediate problem at hand, it appears. Ms. Clifford is apparently planning to tell the full story. Her lawyer has said Mr. Cohen violated their nondisclosure agreement, and she is no longer bound by the agreement. “Everything is off now and Stormy (Ms. Clifford goes by that name) is going to tell her story,” said Gina Rodriguez, a manager for Ms. Clifford.
