Trump’s courting of big donors poses major corruption dangers, experts warn
Ex-president has pledged regulatory changes and other policies to boost big donors’ businesses, watchdogs say
Peter Stone in WashingtonMon 7 Oct 2024 07.00 EDT
As Donald Trump has ramped up fundraising from mega-donors for his 2024 presidential campaign and allied Super Pacs, he has increasingly pledged regulatory changes and other policies to boost their businesses, campaign-finance watchdogs have warned.
Experts say Trump’s political pitches and maneuverings are a clearly “transactional” chase for big checks, and pose a serious danger of major corruption in a US political system already flooded with powerful donors and lobbyists.
Trump’s transactional fundraising style has accelerated, and is underscored by his intense efforts to corral backing and big checks from Elon Musk – the billionaire who owns the social media platform X and is worth $263bn– plus fossil-fuel and crypto currency moguls, while dangling favorable federal policies and perks, say critics.
To boost Trump’s electoral fortunes, the Musk-led America Pac had spent almost $60m by mid-September while fossil fuel donors who Trump has courted intensely have ponied up over $20m to other pro-Trump Super Pacs, his campaign and the Republican National Committee, according to OpenSecrets.
“For Trump, political support, as well as access and influence, are all for sale to the wealthiest donors willing to finance Trump’s candidacy,” said Saurav Ghosh, the director of federal campaign finance reform at the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center. “It is difficult to imagine a more apt description of corruption.”Trump’s wooing of Musk, who Trump has suggested could play a big role on a new federal advisory panel, and other super-rich donors have become more crucial to his chances in November as Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign has overall outraised Trump’s.
.................................................
Of related interest, Marcy Wheeler posted online and linked at EmptyWheel:
you can click the image to read it or -
For reader convenience, (same EmptyWheel post), Wheeler also posted a more easily read version of the footnote (from early in Justice John Robert's majority opinion on Presidential Immunity for official acts ), an html version of the footnote:
3 JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” Post, at 6 (opinion concurring in part); cf. post, at 25–27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety. As we have explained, such inspection would be “highly intrusive” and would “ ‘seriously cripple’ ” the President’s exercise of his official duties. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 745, 756 (quoting Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 498 (1896)); see supra, at 18. And such second-guessing would “threaten the independence or effectiveness of the Executive.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 805 (2020)
So, again, what is a bribe, what is not a bribe, and is the distinction clearcut? Also, note that now Trump is not President, so all his acts are unofficial.
Wheeler in that post noted:
The [prosecution's latest DC District Court] brief doesn’t ever mention footnote 3, in which Chief Justice John Roberts, in an attempt to dismiss Justice Barrett’s concerns that excluding officially immune evidence would make it impossible to prosecute the bribery specifically mentioned in the Constitution, said that of course prosecutors could rely on “the public record.” (See Anna Bowers’ good piece on the footnote here.)
Readers can follow that link, and/or read the Wheeler post, (again, here).
BOTTOM LINE: As to Trump's solicitation of donor interest and money, arguably as a quid pro quo, is it a bribe? Readers: You decide in your own mind, but it is unlikely to ever be prosecuted as such. Shabby, for certain and deserving scorn, yes. But, as to the crime of bribery, that is a slippery question without a trial ending either way.