The Republican Party paying Donald Trump’s legal bills is more proof that he owns the GOP

[ad_1]

The Republican National Committee pays for the personal legal bills of former President Donald Trump, who is legal, politically savvy and deeply informed about the future of the Republican Party. The RNC does not spend up to $ 1.6 million on competitive federal or state races. This money is not spent to push policy proposals. This money is being spent to pay the lawyers Trump had to hire to defend himself in criminal and civil fraud investigations unrelated to his time as president.

Members of the RNC executive committee voted overwhelmingly to pay the legal fees of a self -proclaimed billionaire whose company is being investigated for possible fraud.

Why would the RNC do this? Because the former president-who lost the last presidential election, has been impeachable twice and appears to have incited a “self-coup” attempt-the RNC’s favored cause. Members of the RNC executive committee, reported by The Washington Post as voting overwhelmingly to end the legal bills of a notorious billionaire whose company is being investigated for possible fraud, believe this is where their money is. best spent. (Trump has not been accused of wrongdoing.)

In the movie “All the President’s Men,” the man known as Deep Throat whispered to reporter Bob Woodward, “Follow the money.” Woodward and his fellow Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein then investigated the Watergate scandal and thus deposed Richard Nixon’s presidency. For over four decades, this phrase has become a useful shorthand to explain that if people really want to know what is going on in politics, and even discover political corruption, they should look at the money flowing. in, and around, politicians.

But sometimes that money flows into the open, right in front of our eyes, and it’s easy to track and draw lines between politicians, those who owe them and those who owe them. The RNC paying Trump’s bill is one example.

The promised payments represent a continuation of the RNC’s strategy of being Trump’s party, nothing more and nothing less. In 2020, the GOP chose not to introduce a new party platform. Instead, its focus is to re -elect Trump. The desire to bring Trump back to the Oval Office also explains this decision. Trump, of course, is not yet a candidate. But that doesn’t matter for this unconventional relationship.

The RNC’s decision to help Trump’s bottom line didn’t start with payments to Trump’s lawyers. Thanks, in part, to the RNC’s patronage, Trump-owned assets have raised millions. Do you have a meeting, retreat or fundraising event? Are you a member of the RNC? You could, as a matter of pure chance, choose to hold that event on a Trump property.

The RNC’s decision to spend its money for Trump’s benefit was, naturally, money -driven. Trump is a fundraising blessing for the RNC. He brings in money the party will need not only in 2024, when it might try to bring Trump back to the White House, but money it will need before the 2022 midterm elections.

The current Supreme Court is very opposed to campaign finance restrictions.

So what is the solution to all this? One option is to add restrictions to federal election laws. Federal law prohibits candidates from spending campaign money on personal expenses, including legal costs such as these. Should the law also prohibit political parties from paying for the personal expenses of candidates, or even non -candidates, like Trump does today? This poses many legal and administrative barriers. Let us note that the current Supreme Court is very opposed to campaign finance restrictions. Even if Congress makes and passes the right law, the Supreme Court is unlikely to let it go.

Perhaps the better solution is to do nothing. Maybe it’s better to see, on the outside, who is paying for what. Under the current arrangement, investigative reporters no longer need to seek out confidential sources to whisper information and encourage them to “follow the money.” We no longer need investigative reporters. As long as these funds are disclosed, the public can make its own conclusions.

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, is the host of the podcast “Passing Judgment”. He is also the director of the Public Service Institute at Loyola Law School, co-director of Loyola’s Journalist Law School and former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

[ad_2]