Payment to porn actress could violate finance law
Key concern could involve campaign finance limits
Trouble heats up over an alleged past affair between Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump, an allegation the president disputes. Watchdog groups say a $130,000 payment Daniels alleges she received could be considered an illegal campaign action.
“The whole set of circumstances raise a number of red flags.” Richard Hasen University of California-Irvine
WASHINGTON – The new revelations about President Trump and his lawyer’s payment to a porn star who says she had an affair with Trump have prompted campaign-finance watchdogs and some Democrats on Capitol Hill to renew their calls for a federal investigation.
On Monday, Common Cause filed updated complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice, arguing that a lawsuit filed by adult film actress Stormy Daniels demonstrates that a $130,000 payment to her broke election laws.
Another group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues that Trump may have run afoul of rules requiring him to list his personal debts on a financial disclosure form.
“The whole set of circumstances raise a number of red flags about potential campaign finance violations that merit further investigation,” said Richard Hasen, an expert on election law at
the University of California-Irvine.
Under federal law, an individual could not donate more than $2,700 directly to Trump’s primary or general election campaign in 2016. A $130,000 payment would far exceed that limit.
But federal investigators would have to weigh whether the payment was, indeed, about influencing the election. In her lawsuit, Daniels says it was.
Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, said the affair began in 2006 and lasted until “well into” 2007. But she said Trump and Cohen “aggressively sought to silence” her in October 2016 — a decade after the alleged relationship began — to help “ensure he won the presidential election.”
Just days before the election, Daniels and Cohen signed what she calls a “hush” agreement. The money paid to Daniels flowed through Essential Consultants, a limited liability company Cohen created in Delaware several weeks before the election.
“It’s very strong evidence that this was about the election,” said Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who is now senior director of the non-profit Campaign Legal Center. “If he was not running for election, they would not have done this.”
If the $130,000 payment came from Trump himself, the payment did not violate the law on contribution limits. Candidates can put unlimited amounts of their own money into campaigns.
But Trump’s campaign, and Cohen, could be in legal jeopardy if Cohen, or another unnamed party, was the source of the money.
Earlier this year, Cohen said he used his own money to “facilitate” the payment and was not reimbursed by either Trump’s company or the Trump campaign. Late last week, he offered more detail, saying he used a home-equity line of credit to pay Daniels.
Federal law prohibits corporations and labor groups from donating directly to candidates. Companies and unions also are barred from “facilitating the making of contributions to candidates or political committees.”
Cohen, who served as a top lawyer with the Trump Organization in 2016, has said the company was not involved. But an email released by Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti shows Cohen using a Trump Organization email address as he worked to arrange the payment to Daniels.
Cohen said he often used his work address for personal business. “I basically used it for everything,” he told ABC News.
Noble said regulators might not look askance at the mere use of the corporate email account. “If it was one or two emails, I would say ‘no,’ ” he said. But they might want to know whether it represents a larger role by the company.
Campaign finance watchdogs say the payment could violate election disclosure laws, which require reporting of contributions to help a candidate.
If Cohen was never reimbursed, the $130,000 should have appeared on Trump’s financial disclosure statement as an unpaid personal debt, according to CREW.
Whether the matter will be investigated is not clear. The Daniels’ case is one of two pending with the Federal Election Commission from Common Cause regarding payments to women who claimed trysts with Trump.
The other questions whether a reported $150,000 payment in August 2016 from the parent company of The
National Enquirer to former playboy model Karen McDougal was intended to “buy and bury” her alleged affair with Trump.
An FEC official declined to comment on the complaints, citing federal law that bars the agency from discussing pending cases.
Experts say recent history also could make the Department of Justice wary.
“If Cohen said, for example, ‘This getting out would kill the campaign,’ that would be strong evidence of motive,” Hasen said. “But in the absence of that, it’s tough.”