On the PBS Newshour this afternoon, Judy Woodruff interviewed former AG (under GW Bush) Michael Mukasey, who offered the following interpretation of campaign finance law (emphasis added):
--------
Judy Woodruff: Focusing on the last point, Michael Cohen is saying the president directed him to make that payment and that the money came — that Michael Cohen made the payment.
The president is saying he didn’t know about it at the time, it was only later that he reimbursed it out of his own money.
And I think the election law suggests, either way, there’s an election law problem, isn’t there?
Michael Mukasey: No, not really.
The election law says that a payment for the purpose of affecting an election has to be reported and is limited for a person other than the candidate to $2,700 and a little bit. It’s the purpose.
If there is a dual purpose, including protecting his reputation, then it’s not considered a campaign contribution. If you make a contribution, for example, to pay for yard signs or buttons, or you make a contribution to pay for airtime, that is a direct contribution to the campaign.
But if you make a contribution that serves a dual purpose, then it is not, I believe, covered by the statute. And that statute is read narrowly.
[Full transcript at www.pbs.org/...]
---------
Any lawyers out there care to weigh in? Does he have a valid defense, or is he full of it?