Looking at FEC | Candidate | Personal use, I don’t see how campaign funds could be used by a candidate to defend itself against a criminal charge. How would you make the case that the charge existed only because the candidate is a candidate?
The Ethics Committee has determined that it is generally permissible under House Rules for a Member to use campaign funds to defend legal actions arising out of his or her campaign, election, or the performance of official duties. The basis of this determination is that the protection of a Member’s presumption of innocence in such actions is a valid political purpose. Use of campaign funds to pay the legal expenses incurred in other kinds of legal actions may also be permissible. However, campaign funds may not be used when the action is primarily personal in nature, such as a matrimonial action, or could result in a direct personal benefit for the Member.
Your link also says:
In specific situations the Commission has concluded that campaign funds may be used to pay for up to 50 percent of legal expenses that do not relate directly to allegations arising from campaign or officeholder activity (for example, activity prior to becoming a candidate or officeholder or activity of a business owned by the candidate/officeholder) if the candidate or officeholder is required to provide substantive responses to the press regarding the allegations of wrongdoing.
So (assuming this is about Trump), he can use campaign funds for half his legal expenses if he puts out a couple of press releases on campaign stationary saying that the case is a bunch of bullshit.
Over the years, the allowed uses of campaign funds have considerably widened.
If this is about Trump, however, I thought he was using PAC funds rather than campaign funds. Different set of rules.
Yes, IIRC there was a discussion on TV that “Stop the Steal” PAC fundraising included the fine print “…and for other expenses related to…” which allowed a substantial portion to be legitimately diverted to “other expenses”.