Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleged that the documents were allegedly falsely altered to conceal a contribution of money in violation of federal campaign finance laws or in pursuance of winning the 2016 election by defrauding the voters of information they had a right to know. Neither argument passes First Amendment scrutiny.

The federal campaign finance laws were partially upheld in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In that case, campaign expenditure limits were ruled to be flatly unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. Under Buckley v. Valeo, an individual like Donald Trump can spend an unlimited amount of his own money promoting his own campaign. But, the Supreme Court in Buckley did uphold contribution limits on how much an individual or a group could contribute to influence an election. Alvin Bragg argues that the Trump organization's contribution of $130,000 to pay Stormy Daniels hush money exceeded federal campaign finance limits on contributions. The federal government itself has adopted a policy of not prosecuting hush money payments as illegal campaign contributions in the wake of its embarrassing loss of such a prosecution brought against Democratic Vice Presidential contender John Edwards. Edwards had paid hush money during the 2004 presidential election to a mistress with who he had had a child out of wedlock.

In 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, the Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by closely allied corporations and groups like The Trump Organization. Under Citizens United, it was perfectly legal for The Trump Organization to pay Daniels $130,000 in hush money to conceal her alleged affair with Donald Trump.

The opinion in Citizens United was written by former Justice, and liberal icon, Anthony M. Kennedy, and it was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito all three of whom are still on the Supreme Court. Given the Court's current membership, it is highly likely that the outcome in Citizens United would prevail again today by a vote of 6 to 3. If Buckley v. Valeo was argued to be an obstacle to Trump prevailing, the Supreme Court would today, in 2024, and should today, in 2024, overrule the campaign finance contribution limits of federal election law as violations of the freedom of speech. Groups contributing to election campaigns can pay for advertising to promote candidates, and they can also pay hush money to keep bad or false stories out of the news. The effect either way is to help the candidate. You can contribute money to generate good publicity. And, you can contribute money to avoid bad publicity. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech in both cases.

Campaign finance limits prevent speech by people who want to engage in it. They have changed Congress so badly that today Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money rather then legislating or meeting with their constituents because of absurdly low campaign finance limits that have not been adequately raised to match inflation since those laws were enacted in the 1970's. The post-Watergate campaign finance laws were and always have been flagrantly unconstitutional in their totality.

Hide Comments | Add Comment