A quick read of the Amended Stormy Daniels Complaint

[EffieBlack]

41. Whether or not she knew the payment was an illegal campaign contribution is irrelevant

And, although your hypo is more on point than the one I was responding to, it’s still distinguishable from this case.

Specifically, the illegal contribution in your hypo was not the purchase of the truck by the supporter who bought the truck outright from the dealer and then took ownership. The illegal contribution was the the donation of his property to the candidate. The contract he used to obtain that property is irrelevant. This would apply to any property he owned and gave to the candidate - cash, jewelry, real estate, furniture, etc. Once he bought it, it’s his with which to do what he chooses and his actions have no impact on how he obtained it. The fact that, once he owned the property, he illegally donated it to a candidate does not void the contract by which he originally acquired that property.

On the other hand, in this instance, the transaction itself is what triggers the campaign finance violation. Daniels’ silence is the campaign benefit being purchased under the contract and the campaign benefit is very specific to Daniels and only Daniels. It is buying HER silence and without her involvement, the illegal purpose could not be fulfilled. This is not an instance of Cohen buying a product from Daniels and then later giving it to Trump who subsequently used it for an illegal campaign purpose. The deal itself is the illegal campaign purpose. And since courts are loathe to enforce contracts to perform illegal acts, it is very reasonable to argue the unenforceabilty of a contract entered into for the purpose of influencing a presidential campaign if the consideration is deemed an illegal campaign contribution.