As a seasoned tax attorney, I’ve been closely following the case of Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, who has been the subject of allegations of potential campaign finance violations. These allegations have been sown into media appearances and official press statements by Republicans, many of whom are the top impeachment officials in the House. A source with knowledge of GOP efforts to target Hunter Biden told The Daily Beast that Republicans are preparing to make the Biden campaign finance allegations a key part of their defense of former President Donald Trump.
However, experts in campaign finance law have concluded that the allegations against Hunter Biden are not equivalent to the charges against Trump. The key differences lie in the details, such as timing, intention, evidence, and judicially established criminal culpability. In Trump’s case, his then-personal attorney and friend Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to buy the silence of adult film star Stormy Daniels one week before the 2016 election. Cohen eventually pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance charges and served a year in prison.
In Hunter Biden’s case, his own personal attorney and friend, Kevin Morris, made payments on his behalf during the 2020 election. However, these payments were structured as loans that begin coming due in 2025. Republicans have alleged that the tax assistance was intended to help Joe Biden’s campaign and therefore appears to be an illegal in-kind contribution in excess of individual limits. As evidence, they point to an email that Morris sent an accountant, which mentioned ‘considerable risk personally and politically’.
However, Morris has stated that the ‘political risk’ mentioned in the email was not related to the election, but to events surrounding Trump’s first impeachment trial in the Senate. Furthermore, the payments made by Morris to help Hunter Biden resolve tax issues were made one year after the election, which further weakens the argument that they were intended to influence the election.
As a tax attorney, I can affirm that these cases carry a high burden of proof. While the Trump-Cohen payments appear to meet that bar, the Biden-Morris payments likely do not. Prosecutors would pursue these criminal charges in only the most clear-cut cases. And, leaving aside whatever one may think about the propriety of these payments, the comparison with the Stormy Daniels scenario doesn’t hold much water.
It’s important to remember that ‘whataboutism’ isn’t a defense. Each case should be evaluated on its own merits, and the legal intricacies involved should be carefully dissected. As we continue to follow this case, let’s strive to promote responsible financial citizenship and comply with tax laws, regardless of our political affiliations.