[Brad] Smith’s points are misleading, confusing and often incorrect. The FECA places limits ($2,700 in 2016) on how much individuals may legally contribute to federal campaigns, and Cohen’s payment of $130,000 to Daniels plainly exceeded this limit. If coordinated with Trump’s campaign and intended to influence the election, Cohen’s payment constituted an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign under the FECA.
Not only was the payment illegal, so was Trump’s subsequent failure to report it. This additional reporting violation, however, was not dependent on any intent to influence an election. Regardless of whether Trump’s failure to report Cohen’s payment was intended to influence the election, it violated the FECA. Smith’s argument is irrelevant.
Smith is also incorrect about the need for effective influence. All that is needed is an intent to influence an election. Whether Cohen’s payment “could have had no influence on the 2016 election,” as Smith claims, is also irrelevant.