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