From Trump to John Edwards, Charges Over Payments Hinge on the Money’s Purpose

Is paying hush money a crime?

In most cases, the answer is no. Hush-money agreements, also known as nondisclosure agreements, have long been used by companies and private individuals to avoid litigation and keep embarrassing information confidential. Harvey Weinstein, the former producer convicted of rape, used such agreements for years to conceal his harassment and assault of women.

But the question is thornier when it comes to candidates in the midst of political campaigns, and it has not often been posed in federal or New York State courts.

As it relates to former President Donald J. Trump and the porn star Stormy Daniels, the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, revealed his answer on Tuesday when he unsealed an indictment of Mr. Trump: A hush-money payment can constitute a crime if made to protect a political candidate.

All of the felony counts Mr. Trump is now facing stem from reimbursements to his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, for paying $130,000 to Ms. Daniels in exchange for her silence about the liaison she said she had with Mr. Trump.

Having charged Mr. Trump with falsifying business records, Mr. Bragg’s office will have to navigate complicated legal terrain. A conviction would hinge on proving that reimbursements to Mr. Cohen were falsely disguised as legal fees to conceal another crime: perhaps a violation of election laws. The indictment did not, however, charge Mr. Trump with an election law violation; Mr. Cohen has admitted to committing one with the payment to Ms. Daniels.

The case bears some similarities to the prosecution of a former United States senator, John Edwards of North Carolina, who was charged in 2011 with federal campaign finance violations for payments to help a mistress during his own presidential run in 2008. The case ended without a conviction.

Federal and state campaign laws require reporting of campaign-related payments, and if they are made by third parties coordinating with the candidate, such as Mr. Cohen, they are subject to certain limits. Mr. Cohen’s payment to Ms. Daniels before the 2016 presidential election was well beyond the federal legal limit.

The indictment of Mr. Trump charged him with 34 counts of falsifying business records in reimbursing Mr. Cohen for the hush money. Mr. Trump, who is once more seeking the Republican nomination for president, has denied sleeping with Ms. Daniels; called the prosecution by Mr. Bragg, a Democrat, political; and said he has done nothing wrong. Appearing in a State Supreme Court on Tuesday, he pleaded not guilty.

On its own, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor in New York State — but it can be charged as a felony if it is intended to conceal another crime. In this case, the indictment accuses him of falsifying business records; an accompanying statement of facts says Mr. Trump orchestrated a scheme to violate election laws.

Proving that element will most likely hinge on whether the hush money is interpreted to have been paid in the service of Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign or for personal reasons, such as shielding his wife, Melania, and youngest son, Barron, from Ms. Daniels’s story.

That is the sort of transaction that Mr. Trump’s lawyers say took place.

“This was a personal expenditure, not a campaign expenditure. Had it been a campaign expenditure, he would have used campaign funds,” one of the lawyers, Joe Tacopina, said on CNN on Sunday.

Mr. Trump’s team has pointed to the failed prosecution of Mr. Edwards to bolster its argument that the payment to Ms. Daniels was not a campaign contribution.

In that case, prosecutors charged Mr. Edwards with campaign finance violations related to payments that two wealthy campaign donors made for living expenses of Mr. Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter, who had given birth to his child, and for travel expenses as she traveled to evade the media during his 2008 presidential campaign.

But Mr. Edwards’s lawyers won an acquittal on one count and a mistrial on five other charges, which prosecutors then dismissed, by arguing that the payments were not related to the election. His lawyers showed that one of the donors continued making payments to help Ms. Hunter after Mr. Edwards suspended his campaign. And he had another convincing motive to keep Ms. Hunter and her child a secret: His wife, Elizabeth, was dying of cancer.

Mr. Bragg’s office might be able to make a stronger case in arguing that the payment to Ms. Daniels was made to influence the election on Mr. Trump’s behalf rather than for personal reasons.

For one thing, Ms. Daniels had tried to sell her story of sleeping with Mr. Trump for at least five years, but he had never before agreed to pay for her silence. Mr. Cohen did so weeks before the election, and days after the so-called “Access Hollywood” tape — in which Mr. Trump was heard talking about groping women — was made public, potentially tanking Mr. Trump’s campaign.

For another, Mr. Trump met with Mr. Cohen and David Pecker, the publisher of The National Enquirer, at the beginning of his campaign in August 2015 to discuss a strategy for bottling up negative stories. And Mr. Pecker’s company paid to suppress the story of another woman, the Playboy model Karen McDougal, less than three months before Ms. Daniels received her payment.

Both Mr. Pecker and Mr. Cohen have testified before the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump, and would be expected to do so at a trial.

Jeff Tsai, a San Francisco lawyer and former federal prosecutor who worked on the Edwards case, said in an interview that because of the “elasticity” of whether money is primarily spent to help a campaign or for personal reasons, the facts in a particular case are extremely important.

“Jurors will have to decide as to whether or not these funds, putting some of the salacious details aside, are fundamentally being used for campaign purposes,” Mr. Tsai said.

One successful case brought by the Justice Department on the theory that hush money payments can violate election laws was against Mr. Cohen himself, who pleaded guilty to campaign finance charges in 2018 in connection with the Daniels and McDougal payments, while saying his actions had been directed by Mr. Trump. But because Mr. Cohen did not go to trial, the prosecution’s case was not tested before a judge or jury.

Kate Christobek contributed reporting.