[Ed. – So much for the supposed FEC angle. Kaye’s post speaks of “in-kind contributions” — following NYT‘s initial use — but clearly the money exchange at issue would be an expenditure by the campaign, which is what Smith refers to.]
Monday, Mark Levin interviewed former FEC Chair, Professor Bradley Smith who explained why any hush money (as it’s being called) paid to these alleged paramours falls outside of the definition of ‘in-kind contributions.’
“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason,” Smith explained.