- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,026
- 47,212
- 2,180
The snowflakes insist that paying Stormy to shut her pie hole is a campaign contribution. Here's the final word on the subject. Only sheer idiocy would cause anyone to continue claiming that the snowflake theory is valid.
Law Professor and former FEC chairman Bradley Smith spoke with conservative radio host Mark Levin on Tuesday. He laid out the reason why the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels from President Trumpās private attorney Michael Cohen could not be an in-kind campaign contribution.
āHereās the bottom line,ā Smith told Levin. āThe purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You canāt use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.ā
He said, āAnd the FEC standard for that is you canāt use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you canāt use that for something youād have to pay anyway thatās not directly for your campaign. The question is, āis this really a campaign obligation?āā
Professor Smith continued, āNone of these expenditures helped Mr. Trumpās campaign. Thereās all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.ā
He emphasized, āHistorically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.ā
Professor Smith added, āWhen the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.ā
āHereās the bottom line,ā Smith told Levin. āThe purpose of those laws is to prevent corruption and one way campaign contributions or in-kind campaign contributions are different than bribes is that you have to use them to get elected. You canāt use them to buy yourself grandfather clocks or fur coats or Rolex watches or something like that.ā
He said, āAnd the FEC standard for that is you canāt use your campaign money for personal use. What they mean by that is you canāt use that for something youād have to pay anyway thatās not directly for your campaign. The question is, āis this really a campaign obligation?āā
Professor Smith continued, āNone of these expenditures helped Mr. Trumpās campaign. Thereās all kinds of reasons why he may want to make these expenditures even if the allegations made by Stormy Daniels are untrue. Just for family harmony, commercial viability over the long term.ā
He emphasized, āHistorically, the FEC has said these things are not campaign contributions.ā
Professor Smith added, āWhen the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.ā
