Post New

Who saw this coming?

The minute Donald Trump began rumbling about changing the leadership of the Republican National Committee, the conflicts of interest and motivation for the change became apparent. Trump wanted more control over the RNC both because a) he cannot stand to see a single dime spent talking about any other Republican other than Donald Trump and because b) any Republican cash is Donald Trump cash that can be used for his legal bills.

Now, his designated replacement RNC chair and daughter-in-law Lara Trump is saying the inside words outside:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lara-trump-says-r...

------------
Lara Trump, who Donald Trump has endorsed to be the new co-chair of the Republican National Committee, said on Wednesday that the organization needed to raise $500 million for the 2024 general election and did not rule out using raised funds to pay her father-in-law's mounting legal fees.

Warning that the Democratic Party was flush with cash, Trump's daughter-in-law said the party needed a strong fundraising push to help Trump in his bid to return to the White House and for congressional races also up for grabs.
------------

Let's do some math. Trump has four different criminal cases pending (the "Stormy" indictment, the national security documents indictment, the Georgia racketeering indictment and the January 6 indictment) and three civil trials (defamation #1, defamation #2, NYS business records). The three civil trials have progressed the furthest with the most actual courtroom activity and Trump spent over $50,000,000 in a single year on legal fees. As the others reach more critical phases, expenses for those cases will skyrocket as well. A little 8th grade algebra can help estimate his future legal bills by extrapolating from his current legal bills.

* assume lowest burn rate is a pending civil case
* assume active civil case in trial is 2x pendingcivil
* assume pendingcriminal case is 1.5x pendingcivil
* assume activecriminal case is 2x activecivil

Trump spent $50,000,000 on 3 active civil cases and 4 pending criminal cases in 2023. That allows a rough estimate of the basic burn rate that can cascade through these complexity multipliers.

   $50M = (4 x pendingcriminal) + (3 x activecivil)
        = (4 x 1.5 x pendingcivil) + (3 x 2 x pendingcivil)
        = 6 x pendingcivil + 6 x pendingcivil = 12 x pendingcivil

Thus

   pendingcivil burn = $50 M / 12 = $4,166,667

He is heading into a period where his appeals on the civil losses will be active AND at least two of the criminal cases might be active over the next six months.

   burn = ( 3 x activecivil) + (2 x activecriminal) + (2 x pendingcriminal)
        = ( 3 x 2 x pendingcivil) + (2 x 2 x activecivil) + (2 x 1.5 x pendingcivil)
        = ( 6 x pendingcivil) + (4 x 2 x pendingcivil) + ( 3 x pendingcivil)
        = 17 x pending civil = 17 x $4,166,667 = $70,833,333

If all four of the criminal trials become "active" in the same period,

   burn = ( 3 x activecivil) + (4 x activecriminal)
        = ( 3 x 2 x pendingcivil) + (4 x 2 x activecivil)
        = ( 6 x pendingcivil) + (8 x 2 x pendingcivil)
        = 22 x pending civil = 22 x $4,166,667 = $91,666,674

This doesn't include the accruing interest on the $5 million dollar defamation judgement, the $83 million dollar defamation judgement or the $355 million dollar civil fraud judgement, which are accruing interest at NINE PERCENT per year. He has zero chance to win an appeal on those judgements so continuing to litigate them only racks up more in interest charges prior to final settlement. That interest is $39,870,000 per year.

If you believe this math, that's over $130,000,000 in legal bills and INTEREST on civil penalty costs in one year.

These are very crude numbers but they point out the STAGGERING cash flow required to continue the multiple legal charades in play throughout the entire judiciary to defend Trump. They also highlight the STAGGERING conflict of interest between any individual in the predicament to NEED this much legal counsel and the supposed interests of politicians claiming to operate within a political party who have surrendered that party to the will of one person.

This story is newsworthy on two fronts.

First, it strongly suggests that any national Republican fundraising will be essentially confiscated by Trump for promoting himself or covering his legal bills. Having the vast majority of national party dollars absorbed by Trump will cripple Republican campaign efforts for House and Senate in swing states which could return control of both branches of Congress to Democrats, even if Trump was able to somehow win. It seems pretty clear that the Republican zombies who have sworn off any independent thought are clueless about this dynamic and its impact on ALL Republican candidates.

Second, the possibility that national party funds would be absconded by the de facto party head for use in paying legal bills related to PERSONAL crimes and torts having NOTHING TO DO with running for office should be a wakeup call to everyone. This plan on the part of Trump is a new model for organized crime. It's essentially crowd-sourced racketeering. Raising tens / hundreds of millions of dollars and using the loot to fund defenses against prior crimes while remaining out of jail to commit dozens more while clogging up the entire judicial system all the way up to a corrupt Supreme Court. It's the hip new model for organized crime. It's (open source) + (flash mob) + (online commerce). It's https://gofundmycrimespree.com


WTH

It seems pretty clear that the Republican zombies who have sworn off any independent thought are clueless about this dynamic and its impact on ALL Republican candidates.

I'm not sure that's the case. RNC fundraising has been anemic recently, and it's probably due exactly to this factor.

Republican donors generally want their donations to go towards helping elect Republicans. For many - especially small-dollar donors - that will certainly include Trump. But most of those folks will be giving directly to the Trump campaign committees and the PAC's that are funding his efforts directly. The ones who would be RNC donors, though, are going to be more reticent about giving to the national committee if they think they won't get much bang for the buck.

I wouldn't overstate that dynamic - in a Presidential cycle, much of (if not most of) the national committee money for both parties is going to go to the Presidential nominee's campaign anyway. And obviously Republican donors would mostly prefer Trump over Biden, and they'll be grown-ups about understanding that Trump has to pay a ton of legal fees in order to remain a viable candidate. But I don't think they're clueless about what's going on, and I think it's going to be a big brake on RNC fundraising.

i am curious how much nonrefundable cash trump will be continually running up, but believe everything else here may be giving Trump.Org too much foresight credit.

first, i can imagine dozens of scenarios where trump would want to place a family member to head the RNC (or any money influential entity) for later grift.
-if money ends up going to lawyers, civil fines, etc... well, it was somebody else's.
-if grifting donations itself becomes a prosecuted crime, well just send the in-law (maybe ex in-law by then) to jail and\or put in the back of the line for a few years later with the usual delay tactics.

if trump claimed he could rescue the NRA by putting baron\eric\don\tif there, it would be an identical play.


trump only believes the voting machine will defeat the weighing machine.

Is it even legal for them to use campaign donations for anything other than campaigns? I wouldn't think they could direct any money to Trump's legal fees. That would be misuse of funds, yes? Any monies for that purpose would have to be sent straight to Trump, I would think.

If the Republican Party continues like this, it is going to implode. It's kinda weird that all my life I've heard that the Democrat Party is like herding cats (or, as Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to an organized political party; I'm a Democrat"). But the Republicans seem to be fracturing. Their fight over McCarthy was really a self-inflicted wound, for example. Allowing Trump to seize Republican funds for his own purposes would be another step down the path to complete breakdown.

Or am I missing something?

This will likely be the subject of a future commentary but it will take some reading.

In a plain language interpretation of "campaign finance law," it would seem obvious that "campaign-related expenses" would include things like:

* running TV / radio / web ads that say "Vote for Me"
* sending flyers via US mail saying the same
* renting convention centers and concert halls for campaign rallies
* paying for airfare, rental cars, campaign buses, hotel stays to lead campaign events
* staff salaries for media consultants, press liasons, door knockers for get-out-the-vote efforts, etc.
* staff salaries for accountants, auditors, security personnel, etc.

It would also seem blatantly obvious that "campaign finance law" would NOT anticipate or allow the following expenditures being paid for by political donations:

* defense attorney fees for civil lawsuits
* defense attorney fees for criminal indictments
* hotel / airfare / rental car costs associated with travel for depositions in those cases
* hotel / airfare / rental car costs associated with travel for court appearances in those cases
* staff legal costs for discovery compliance, electronic document search, etc. tied to criminal / civil cases

Recent history has confirmed politicians have multiple options for using remaining campaign / PAC money still left when they leave office:

* they can use it for expenses for closing their office up to 6 months after leaving office
* they can donate the money to other campaigns or PACs
* they can simply hold on to it if they are contemplating running for another office in the future

They are NOT required to return it to donors. The choices above leave many avenues open to buy favors from remaining powerful politicians, funnel money to friends and family helping them to "close" their office, etc. For this reason, it seems obvious why many politicians continue fundraising and DELAY announcements of decisios to leave office as much as possible.

I'm sure there are at least five justices on the Supreme Court that, if given a chance to rule on a case brought before them, would rule that ANY expense involved in protecting the image of a candidate involves that candidate's right to poitical free speech and must be allowed.

As I said, to me, this looks like an avenue for crowd-sourced, social-media marketed racketeering.


WTH

"Recent history has confirmed politicians have multiple options for using remaining campaign / PAC money still left when they leave office

You betcha, and if you're a member of the Orange Jesus cult, you can count on ol' Trumpski pardoning your ass after you've been convicted of stealing that money.

Duncan Hunter was " a corrupt congressman who intentionally and repeatedly stole from his campaign funds for a decade.
Hunter and his wife faced a 60-count indictment of stealing more than $250,000 in campaign contributions and trying to hide it on financial disclosure records, listing some personal expenses as contributions to wounded warriors. Each had faced up to five years in prison.

Each pleaded guilty to a single count in separate plea agreements last year.

The funds bankrolled private school tuition for his children, his wife's shopping sprees, weekend trips with his mistress and drinking parties in Washington."

https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/12/22/ou...

Hunter asked the court Tuesday to spare the mother of his three children jail time, and said he takes full responsibility. He showed little emotion."

Hunter's wife rolled on him for a deal.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.