In a recent interview with CNN, Federal Election Commission (FEC) Commissioner Caroline Hunter stated that the alleged affair between President Donald Trump and adult film actress Stormy Daniels did not constitute a violation of campaign finance or reporting laws.
Hunter, who was appointed to the FEC by President George W. Bush in 2008, explained that the payment made to Daniels by Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen was not a campaign contribution because it was made for personal reasons, not to influence the election.
“The payment was made to protect the president’s personal reputation, not to advance his campaign,” Hunter said. “Therefore, it does not fall under the definition of a campaign contribution.”
Hunter also noted that even if the payment had been made to influence the election, it would not necessarily be a violation of campaign finance laws. She explained that the FEC has a long-standing policy of not enforcing the reporting requirements for payments made for personal reasons, such as to protect a candidate’s reputation.
“The FEC has consistently held that payments made for personal reasons, even if they have some connection to a campaign, do not need to be reported as campaign contributions,” Hunter said.
Hunter’s comments come amid ongoing legal battles over the Daniels payment and other alleged campaign finance violations by the Trump campaign. Earlier this year, Cohen pleaded guilty to charges of campaign finance violations related to the payment to Daniels and other hush money payments made to women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump.
However, Hunter’s remarks suggest that the FEC may not view the Daniels payment as a campaign finance violation, which could have implications for future cases involving similar payments.
Despite Hunter’s comments, some legal experts have argued that the payment to Daniels could still be considered a campaign finance violation if it was made with the intent to influence the election. They point to the fact that Cohen has stated that he made the payment at the direction of Trump, who was a candidate for president at the time.
Regardless of the legal implications, the controversy surrounding the Daniels payment has continued to dog the Trump administration, with many critics arguing that it raises questions about the president’s character and fitness for office. As the legal battles continue to play out, it remains to be seen how the FEC and other regulatory bodies will ultimately view the payment and its implications for campaign finance and reporting laws.
