New York Times has an article about Trump and his legal fees. Apparently one of his PACs has asked for a refund of $60 million that it paid to one of his other PACs, because Trump is having trouble defending himself from his many criminal lawsuits and needs the money back.
Things that jumped out at me from the story:
What is the boundary between politics and legal defence for the laws governing PACs? He of course would say that the only reason he’s been charged is political corruption, to get him to drop out of the race or lose, so it’s election-related; is that really an argument?
What about fraud? Trump apparently started this PAC, or raised money for it, to bring legal challenges to the [alleged] stolen election. If he now is using that money for his personal defence fund, isn’t that fraud?
And this PAC is also paying the bills for his co-accuseds. How is that election-related, to use money raised for campaign purposes to defend third parties who aren’t running for any office?
And Trump is apparently opposed to starting a legal defence fund, because that’s an admission of guilt: “he has told several associates that legal-defense funds are organized only by people who are guilty of crimes, according to people who have heard the remarks.” It’s just like pleading the 5th – only criminals (and Donald J. Trump) do that!
And this comment, which should surprise nobody on this Board: “Mr. Trump has long told associates that lawyers and other people contracted to work for him should do so for free, because they get free publicity.”
I really don’t understand PACs in the US. Are they just a candidate’s personal piggy bank?
I look forward to our experts chiming in. I also have wondered what the rules and boundaries are—that a PAC could fund a criminal defense seems bizarre to me.
The only thing that I have to say is that there’s nothing stopping people from breaking most laws - if anyone notices, then someone can bring an investigation to see if anything illegal happened. My guess is that campaign finance laws are being completely disregarded. I don’t have any proof of that, but given what else we’ve seen from these people, I have little doubt.
I do wonder if such funds, even legal defense funds, can be used for cases where Trump is the Plaintiff? Such as Trump’s defamation case against CNN, which was initiated at Trump’s request and was absurd to begin with. Trump has lots of these.
Does the article explain what that original transfer was for? If I pay someone to paint my chicken coop, and they don’t paint my chicken coop, I’m justified in asking for a refund of what I paid.
So now, with regards to Trump and his PACs, I’m curious what the details were of that original transfer. When PAC1 gave money to PAC2, was it in return for some service or consideration; and was that service fulfilled? If it wasn’t, sounds like PAC1 is owed a refund. On the other hand, if there were no strings attached to the original transfer, then why does PAC1 now ask for a refund; just transfer funds to whichever PAC needs them.
This is Trump we’re talking about, so I expect whatever financial shenanigans he thinks he can get away with. I wouldn’t be surprised if the money is never spent on campaigning or legal fees; just transfer it from one PAC to another with TrumpCo taking a processing fee each time.
And the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which is charged with enforcing what rules there are, is an entirely feckless body. The six commissioners are split between three Republicans and three Democrats, and it takes a majority of four to take any substantive action. Republicans in particular have ensured that their commissioner are diehards opposed to any campaign finance restrictions.
Frankly, as far as I’m concerned, the more donor money that is grifted away from things that actually might help Republicans in the next election, the better it is for everyone. So I hope they keep funneling all the money they collect into bogus consulting fees for cronies, outrageously costly events at Trump properties, legal expenses and other assorted grifts. It keeps it from being used to buy advertising and support down ballot candidates.
In all honesty, I don’t really have an issue with this. It is inarguable that the legal cases are impacting his campaign, so fighting those cases is going to directly improve his chances for election. I’d say that if he’s able to get himself acquitted, that will make for a clearer improvement than paying for TV ads. (Though I also think that acquittal is so remote that it’s not worth considering; legal maneuvers like delays and appeals will probably be better in at least pushing off conviction long enough for him to be elected before he’s actually declared guilty of anything.)
Potentially, there seems to be a case there, where you claim a specific reason for raising money, and then use it for another. But it might not matter as long as the money is being spent in some way to improve his chances of being elected.
This seems to be a bigger issue though. While getting Trump acquitted is an obvious way to help his campaign, acquitting his associates is much less clear. This doesn’t seem like an appropriate use of funds to me.
I don’t know how much that matters legally, though obviously it shows how much of a slimy liar he is. But that’s like saying that a moist dolphin is yet more evidence that the ocean is wet. As if that really matters at this point.
Just typical Trump. Everyone in his orbit owes him just because he graces them with the presence of being in his orbit. What’s sad is how often that actually works for him.
My caution is that grifting away political contributions could possibly help Trump by reducing the number of annoying TV commercials, on his behalf, reminding Cornel West supporters of the consequences of not voting for Biden in a swing state. Remember that Trump won in 2016 when he was outspent 2 - 1.
This is not to say you are wrong! Possibly helping Trump is different from probably! Ads can backfire, but street money does not. I just mention the risk, of Trump’s grifts helping him, because so many here are getting their hopes up that Trump is on the road to the big house. Could be, but he is more likely going back to the White House.
I have no doubt that is the Republicans in the FEC could nail Biden for mailing a personal letter with a postage stamp paid for by campaign funds they would gladly do so.
PACs were invented to allow money to flow in behalf of candidates to be used in virtually any way imaginable.
The only restriction was supposedly that the PAC and the candidate’s legal campaign cannot co-ordinate at all. Nobody believes that restriction is obeyed in real life.
Trump did not, as the OP states, start this PAC. That would be wildly illegal and his lawyers would jump out windows before agreeing to it. He didn’t have to. PACs have a wink-wink relationship with candidates. They are lawfully unlawful. Good ahead, call the American system insane. But in the end I don’t think any of this is illegal, even if unethical is a mild term.
Thank you for your clarification. I am just a poor innocent Canadian, unwise in the ways of PACs and super-PACs.
However, I do note that the NYT uses the third person possessive in their stories:
Earlier this year, Mr. Trump [began diverting a larger percentage of every dollar he raised online away from his campaign and into his PAC, which he has used to pay for his lawyers.
Despite having his political action committee pay his legal fees, Mr. Trump, a wealthy businessman and celebrity, insisted on Saturday at a rally in Erie, Pa., that he would spend his own money on his campaign if he had to.
What I should have remembered is that PACs can be formed for reasons that have nothing to do with a candidate, as per the bullet points in that link. I was right that PACs can do virtually anything with their money. No candidates and no parties are mentioned anywhere on that page.
But what in the world does reality have to do with a Trump organization that proclaims:
We believe in Law and Order, and we believe that the men and women of law enforcement are HEROES who deserve our absolute support.
We believe in FREE SPEECH and Fair Elections. We must ensure fair, honest, transparent and secure elections going forward — where every LEGAL VOTE counts.
Article in the Guardian today reports that Trump’s PAC was down to just $4 million at the beginning of June, so asked for a refund of $60 million from an “unrelated” super-PAC.