Cohen's Broken Election Laws: What And Why?

Michael Cohen, former lawyer and fixer to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance law and other offences. Cohen paid adult film actress Stephanie Clifford (also known as Stormy Daniels) $130,000 and arranged for a publishing company to pay model Karen McDougal $150,000 for her story, in exchange for the women agreeing not to go public with allegations of affairs with Trump. Cohen's payment to Clifford exceeded the $2,700 limit on personal contributions to a single candidate for an election, and the payment to McDougal flouted the ban on corporations contributing directly to campaigns. Cohen was sentenced to 36 months in prison for these violations, as well as for tax evasion and bank fraud.

Cohen's payment to Clifford exceeded the $2,700 limit on personal contributions to a single candidate for an election

In 2016, Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer and "fixer", paid adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, $130,000 to prevent her from going public with allegations of an affair with Trump. This payment, according to federal prosecutors, was intended to influence the 2016 election and was, therefore, treated as a campaign contribution.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, individual campaign contributions cannot exceed $2,700 per election and must be disclosed. Cohen's payment to Clifford exceeded this limit, constituting a violation of campaign finance law.

Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance law and was sentenced to 36 months in prison. In addition to the campaign finance offense, Cohen was also convicted of tax evasion and bank fraud.

The case of Cohen's payment to Clifford highlights the importance of upholding campaign finance laws and ensuring transparency in political contributions. It is essential to maintain fairness and integrity in the electoral process, and any violation of these laws can have significant consequences, as seen in Cohen's sentencing.

Furthermore, the Cohen case underscores the need for effective enforcement of campaign finance regulations. In recent years, there has been criticism of the Federal Election Commission's handling of violations, with some arguing that the agency has failed to adequately address instances of corruption and illegal spending in political campaigns.

Overall, the Cohen payment to Clifford exceeding the $2,700 limit on personal contributions to a single candidate for an election serves as a reminder of the crucial role that campaign finance laws play in maintaining the integrity of the democratic process.

The payment to McDougal flouted the ban on corporations contributing directly to campaigns

During the 2016 election, Michael Cohen, former lawyer and "fixer" to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, arranged for a $150,000 payment to be made to the publisher of the National Enquirer, American Media Inc., who then paid model Karen McDougal for her story in exchange for her agreement not to go public with allegations of an affair with Trump. This flouted the ban on corporations contributing directly to campaigns, as laid out in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance law and other offenses as part of a plea agreement with the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan. He was sentenced to 36 months in prison, in part for "brazen violations of election laws." The payment to McDougal was treated as a campaign contribution, which are subject to restrictions under the Federal Election Campaign Act. This Act regulates the influence of money on politics and sets certain limitations and prohibitions on contributions.

At the time, individual contributions to any presidential candidate were limited to $2,700 per election, and presidential candidates and their committees were prohibited from accepting contributions from individuals exceeding this limit. Corporations were also prohibited from making contributions directly to presidential candidates, and candidates were prohibited from accepting corporate contributions. Cohen's payment to McDougal far exceeded the permissible campaign contribution limits.

The case of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, a two-time Democratic presidential candidate, has been cited as having some parallels to Cohen's case. Edwards was indicted in 2011 on charges that he was part of a scheme during his 2008 campaign to have two of his supporters spend almost $1 million to conceal an affair. Prosecutors argued that these payments were tantamount to illegal campaign contributions, but the Justice Department eventually dropped the case after trial jurors deadlocked on five of the criminal counts and acquitted him on the sixth.

Cohen's payment to McDougal was an impermissible accepted corporate contribution

In 2016, Michael Cohen, former lawyer and "fixer" to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels (whose real name is Stephanie Clifford) and arranged for a publishing company to pay $150,000 to former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Both women had agreed not to go public with allegations of affairs with Trump in exchange for the money.

Cohen's payment to McDougal was made through American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Inquirer. AMI's chairman, David Pecker, had an explicit agreement with Trump to "catch and kill" stories by women claiming to have had affairs with him. Cohen helped facilitate the payment to McDougal in exchange for her story and modelling opportunities.

The payment to McDougal was an illegal in-kind corporate contribution to Trump's campaign. Cohen's arrangement with AMI violated federal law, which prohibits corporations from contributing to campaigns. The ban on corporate contributions is intended to prevent corporations from directly influencing campaigns and to maintain transparency in campaign contributions.

In addition, the payment exceeded the $2,700 limit on individual contributions to a single candidate for an election. Cohen's payment to McDougal, along with the one to Daniels, totalled $280,000 in unlawful campaign contributions.

Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance law and was sentenced to 36 months in prison. He also pleaded guilty to tax evasion and bank fraud.

Cohen's payment to Clifford was an in-kind contribution and exceeded contribution limits

In 2016, Michael Cohen, the former lawyer and "fixer" of President Donald Trump, paid $130,000 to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels. This payment was made in exchange for Clifford's agreement not to go public with allegations of an affair with Trump. Trump has denied the affair.

Cohen's payment to Clifford was treated as a campaign contribution by prosecutors, as it was intended to influence the 2016 election. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, individual contributions to any presidential candidate are limited to $2,700 per election. Cohen's payment exceeded this limit, constituting a "brazen violation" of election laws.

In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including tax evasion, making false statements to a federally-insured bank, and campaign finance violations. He was sentenced to three years in prison.

Cohen's payment to Clifford, therefore, constituted an in-kind contribution that exceeded the contribution limits set by the Federal Election Campaign Act. This act prohibits contributions exceeding $2,700 per election and defines contributions as payments intended to influence the election. Cohen's payment of $130,000 to Clifford far exceeded the limit and was made to influence the 2016 election, thus violating the Act.

Cohen's payments were never disclosed on Trump's campaign filings

In 2016, Michael Cohen, former lawyer and "fixer" to President Donald Trump, orchestrated hush money payments to two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump. The women in question were adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Cohen paid Clifford $130,000 and arranged for a publishing company to pay McDougal $150,000 for her story, in exchange for their silence regarding their alleged affairs with Trump. These payments were never disclosed on Trump's campaign filings.

Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance law and other offences as part of a plea agreement with the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan. In court, Cohen stated under penalty of perjury that he knew he was committing a crime by making the payments and did so "at the direction" of Trump, for the "principal purpose of influencing the election."

Under federal law, individual campaign contributions cannot exceed $2,700 per election and must be disclosed. Cohen's payments to Clifford and McDougal exceeded this limit and were not reported, constituting a violation of campaign finance law. The purpose of the hush payments was to influence the 2016 election, and as such, they were treated as campaign contributions, which are subject to restrictions under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

The non-disclosure of Cohen's payments on Trump's campaign filings raises legal questions and potential implications for the president. Legal experts have suggested that Cohen's testimony and the evidence he provided could potentially be used by prosecutors to build a campaign finance law violation case against Trump. However, Trump's lawyers have argued that the payments were not campaign contributions but rather intended to protect Trump's reputation.

Frequently asked questions