Trump’s mix of business, politics makes for unorthodox bid

Washington: It can be hard to see where Donald Trump the business ends and Donald Trump the presidential candidate begins.

When rivals level political attacks, the US Republican front-runner’s company attorney threatens lawsuits on corporate letterhead. When his campaign needs event space, private businesses sometimes provide it free.

The political novice’s use of corporate resources — both his own and those of others — is another tool in his asymmetrical bid for the White House. But it has drawn the attention of federal regulators, as well as campaign-law experts who say some of what he’s doing could be illegal.

“The entanglements with his business and his campaign are certainly unusual, and maybe unprecedented,” said Kenneth Gross, an attorney who previously led the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC’s) enforcement division. “Use of a candidate’s own corporate resources is highly, highly regulated activity.”

At the FEC’s demand, Trump’s campaign on Thursday provided regulators with the names of employees at his real estate and entertainment company who are doing work for his campaign — mostly security and communications aides.

Trump’s personal brand is fused with his business, making his campaign’s navigation of election law a particular challenge. He is not the first candidate in this position. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and past presidential contender Steve Forbes both run companies bearing their name.

“From day one, there was no use of any corporate assets in any way, shape or form,” said Bill Dal Col, who ran Forbes’ unsuccessful 1996 and 2000 White House campaigns. “That way you don’t have to walk the maze of campaign law, and you don’t expose business or campaign to any liability.”

Bloomberg also took “enormous care” not to commingle his business and campaign, said Gross, who was his campaign attorney.

Trump is taking a different path, testing an area of election law as no other candidate has before.

Reports filed by Trump’s campaign covering its activities through September 30 show hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to cover reimbursements for campaign space at Trump’s Manhattan office tower, political use of the corporate jet and the salaries of Trump Organisation employees.

Trump himself appears to be paying for the jet and salaries, and candidates are allowed to spend as much of their own money seeking election as they wish.

But none of the Trump Organisation lawyers, including general counsel Alan Garten, are being paid through the campaign. Garten has fired off angry letters when a rival candidate or group attacks Trump.

This month, Mike Fernandez, a billionaire Miami donor backing Jeb Bush’s White House bid, called Trump “a destroyer” in newspaper ads.

Garten warned him and the treasurer of an unrelated pro-Bush group that if the “ads contain any false, misleading, defamatory, inaccurate or otherwise tortious statements or representations concerning Mr. Trump, his business or his brand, we will not hesitate to seek immediate legal action to prevent such distribution and hold you jointly and severally liable to the fullest extent of the law for any damages resulting therefrom ... and will look forward to doing it.”

Recipients of similar letters from Garten include a group backing the candidacy of Ohio Gov. John Kasich and the conservative group Club for Growth, which spent about $1 million (Dh3.6 million) on TV ads calling Trump “the worst kind of politician.”

Political candidates rarely respond to attacks by threatening legal action, because the law gives wide protection to speech made against political figures, a group that now includes Trump. The Trump Organisation argues it has a right to protect its brand, which means protecting Trump.

“Those rights are not forfeited by virtue of Mr. Trump’s candidacy,” said Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokeswoman (and Trump Organisation employee). The defence of his brand, she said, “is in no way any form of campaign activity and does not run afoul of federal election laws.”

Bob Biersack, who worked for the FEC for 30 years and is now a senior fellow at the Centre for Responsive Politics, called such reasoning “kind of silly.” He said he had never heard of a business person invoking brand protection as a guard against public policy arguments.

Some of those who have received Trump Organisation warnings have in turn slammed him for what they contend is his illegal use of corporate resources.

“Trump and his agents have explicitly directed his corporate attorneys at the Organisation to do the dirty work for the campaign,” wrote Charlie Spies, the attorney for groups backing Bush, in a reply to Garten. “Just as your client is attempting to quickly learn the basics of foreign policy, we wish you personally the best in your attempts to learn election law.”