Watchdogs argue payment to Daniels possibly illegal
Porn star alleges she was threatened to stay silent about Trump fling
WASHINGTON – The new revelations about President Donald 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 last week 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, expert on election law at the University of California-Irvine.
Here’s a look at the some potential areas of legal risk for Trump and his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen:
Under federal law, an individual could not donate more than $2,700 directly to Trump’s primary or general election campaign in 2016.
But federal investigators would have to weigh whether the $130,000 payment was, indeed, about influencing the election. In her lawsuit, Daniels says it was.
Daniels 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.” Her lawyer said Friday that she’d been “physically threatened” to stay silent.
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 nonprofit Campaign Legal Center.
Trump’s campaign and Cohen could be in legal jeopardy if Cohen or another party was the source of the money.
The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources, reported last week that Cohen complained to friends after the election that he’d not been reimbursed.
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 late last week by Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti shows Cohen using a Trump Organization email address as he worked to arrange the payment to Daniels.
Cohen has said he often used his work address for personal business.
A variety of federal laws demand truth-telling when reporting information to the government.
Campaign finance watchdogs say the payment could violate election-disclosure laws, which require reporting of contributions and spending to help a candidate.
In addition, if Cohen was never reimbursed, the $130,000 payment should have appeared on Trump’s financial disclosure statement as an unpaid personal debt, according to CREW.