Real simple, any monies that benefit a candidate have to be disclosed.
This statement is an oversimplification. Since Trump funded his own campaign, at least through the primary, he is entitled to spend as much of his own money as desired, without an FEC cap (as with individual donors). It’s also murky to determine specifically how the money accrues a tangible benefit to the candidate: keeping a hooker silent may, or may not, influence the outcome, but there is no way to draw such a conclusion, other than by inference. Which is entirely subjective.
In all this I am thinking about how absurd these campaign finance laws actually are.
If you think back and remember these (or search) these names: James Riady, John Huang, Charlie Trie, Maria Hsai atc you will see how it plays out.
If you are a politician and you accept the money, your penalty is to return the money and maybe pay a fine. If you are the person who gave the money you go to prison.
Seems strange, but on second thought not really. Politicians wrote the law. So of course they wrote the law in a way that lets them slide if they get caught, but “appears tough” on others.
Agreed. It is murky.
It should be remembered that non-disclosure is a very mild offense if it is accidental, happens all the time in elections, especially with in-kind donations.
Cohen’s claim is not corroborated, could all be loose talk.