Skip to main content

Sorry President Trump, Supreme Court Said Agreements Like DNC-Clinton are Legal


Friday morning, President Donald Trump posted a series of tweets regarding the revelation from Donna Brazile that Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the Democratic National Committee prior to last year’s election season whereby her team would provide money to the DNC in exchange for Clinton having control over significant DNC decisions, including finances, staffing, and strategy. If true, this could confirm suspicions that the DNC was specifically backing Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, at the expense of Bernie Sanders and everyone else.

Trump railed against the allegations against Clinton for this, as well as her email server, the Uranium One scandal, and more, calling on the Department of Justice to do “what is right and proper.”

This is a continuation of when Trump tweeted Thursday night that the agreement violated campaign finance law.

For sure, the agreement, which Brazile says was known as the “Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America,” raises ethical concerns for voters who expect an even playing field during the primary season. Nevertheless, election law expert Rick Hasen notes that it is legal, after a ruling by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Roberts ruled against aggregate contribution limits in 2014’s McCutchen v. FEC. This, Hasen argues, essentially made agreements like Clinton’s legal. Roberts’ reasoning in that case was that providing money to political parties for the sake of advancing political beliefs was a positive thing.

If that had been a few years ago, Trump may have had a strong point, but since the McCutcheon ruling, political donors can get away with a lot more, despite how Clinton’s opponents may feel about it.

[Images via Shutterstock]

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Filed Under:

Follow Law&Crime: