Some analysis of a legal effort by Trump allies to target a political opponent. Links on China policy, DARPA, Plato, modernity, and more.
In the eyes of many observers, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Donald Trump this spring transformed the Republican primary. Trump’s polling numbers with Republican voters rebounded, and a series of indictments from federal and local prosecutors have prompted much of the GOP base to rally around the former president in the second half of this year. Elected Republicans across the nation denounced what they have termed the “weaponization” of the justice system. Some Trump allies have even argued that this “lawfare” makes it almost a principled obligation for the Republican Party to unite behind Trump.
However, the actions of a major Trump ally in March 2023 undercut arguments that opposition to a “weaponized” justice system requires support for Trump. That month, the Super PAC “MAGA Inc.”—helmed by former Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich—filed a complaint against Ron DeSantis with the Florida Commission on Ethics. This complaint was later dismissed by the Commission, but the text of this complaint (posted to the Internet by “MAGA Inc”) calls for “severe penalties” against DeSantis, including impeachment, removal from the ballot, impoverishing fines, and (implicitly) imprisonment. While this complaint received coverage at the time of its filing, the precise penalties suggested by Trump allies have been under-analyzed, and these proposed penalties have a very different context now that Trump’s 2024 campaign centers around his legal indictments. The “MAGA Inc” complaint lays out a case for the criminal prosecution of Trump’s leading Republican rival.
The Florida Commission on Ethics is a government body charged with monitoring state ethics laws. Five of the nine members are appointed by the governor, while the heads of the state senate and state House of Representatives each appoint two members. Once a complaint is filed with the Commission, members first have to decide whether there are “legally sufficient” grounds to begin a full investigation. If a subsequent investigation does find that certain ethics laws were broken, the commission can recommend various civil penalties. For instance, a candidate for public office could face some of the following penalties: ballot disqualification, public censure, a civil fine, and/or a fine worth triple the value of a gift received from a political committee. These referrals are then transmitted to the relevant authorities for implementation. For example, a recommendation regarding a member of the state senate would be forwarded to the senate president. A recommendation against a governor would be forwarded to the state’s attorney general.
The ethics complaint filed by “MAGA Inc” against DeSantis essentially argued that the governor—who had not yet officially announced a run for president—was conducting an illegal, undeclared campaign for president. The evidence offered for these charges was very broad. It included that he was on a book tour, that he had met with people who could have influence in a future presidential primary, and that some of his allies had begun to staff a political PAC. Under those criteria, many people could count as having an “undeclared” presidential campaign.
The penalties called for in this filing are more pertinent to 2024 presidential politics. The filing argues “that the Commission should impose on [DeSantis] (and certain political committees) the most severe penalties permitted by Section 112.317 and Section 112.31485 of the Florida Statutes. This includes, without limitation, one or more of the following: (a) impeachment; (b) removal from office; (c) public censure; (d) ballot disqualification; and (e) payment of fines, in certain cases, equaling three times the value of the illegal gift.”
Under Florida law, it takes a 2/3 vote of each house of the state legislature to impeach and remove a sitting governor, so the Commission on Ethics could not implement this penalty or refer it to a single officer who could. Sources that I spoke to were also doubtful that the Commission could even recommend disqualification for a presidential ballot (as the relevant state law doesn’t mention federal elections). Nevertheless, those were the penalties requested by “MAGA Inc.”
Multiple times, the “MAGA Inc” filing invokes a provision of Florida law allowing for triple damages to be levied as fines for illegal gifts from a political committee. There may be a reason for this. At the time of this filing, the civil penalty for ethics violations was capped at $10,000, but a spokesperson for the Florida Commission on Ethics confirmed that there seems to be no cap for the penalty of triple fines for illegal gifts. At one point, this filing says that the “gifts” received by DeSantis (such as spending by a PAC) are worth “millions of dollars.” If that’s the case, this filing could be raising the possibility of levying millions of dollars of fines on DeSantis. If this complaint’s recommendations were realized, the DeSantis family would potentially be facing impoverishment.
Another not-so-veiled threat in this complaint is imprisonment. This complaint charges DeSantis with acting with “wrongful intent by knowingly violating federal campaign finance laws.” “MAGA Inc” alleged that the fundraising and spending of DeSantis-affiliated organizations indicated that DeSantis was really a candidate for president (even if he hadn’t declared). Thus, DeSantis was in “knowing violation” of federal limits for campaign financing.
Knowing here is a tell. Knowing violations of campaign finance law can be subject to criminal prosecution and not only civil penalties (see recent Department of Justice guidelines). Knowing and willing violations of campaign contribution limits on spending or fundraising (over $25,000) can be punished with up to 5 years in prison as well as fines. In this filing, “MAGA Inc” thus lays out a theory of prosecution that could lead to imprisonment. A spokesperson for the Florida Commission on Ethics confirmed to me that the Commission could indeed choose to refer criminal violations it uncovers to law enforcement for further investigation and prosecution.
Ultimately, the Florida Commission on Ethics shot down this complaint as lacking a legal basis. But it’s striking how much this filing by Trump allies anticipates the tactics that would be used to justify the prosecution of Trump—all the way through to the declaration at the very end that “no person is above the law.” This complaint sets out a legal theory for removing DeSantis from the ballot and even potentially incarcerating him.
Many supporters of the former president—including some of his most prominent surrogates—have accused the Biden administration of trying to use the legal system to punish its political opponents. However, this legal broadside shows Trump allies trying to leverage the legal system against one of Trump’s own political opponents (and a fellow Republican).
This preemptive legal strike against DeSantis indicates how Trump more broadly has escalated political conflict, a cycle that could continue if he becomes the Republican nominee next year. The social-media feeds of the Very Online are full of calls for a politics of “retribution” to target the “deep state” and other supposed malefactors. However, it’s quite possible that a White House could sic a prosecutorial apparatus of “retribution” on critics within its own political party.
Other links:
Reset, Prevent, Build: With overwhelming bipartisan support, a House committee has released a report calling for a comprehensive reimagining of the strategic relationship of the United States with the People’s Republic of China. Its recommendations span everything from tariff rates to supply chains to immigration policy. Integrating the American and PRC economies was a signature element of the neoliberal policy dispensation. Reconfiguring that economic relationship could have major effects for a post-neoliberal paradigm.
Zach Kessel reports on the 70th-anniversary celebration of Russell Kirk’s landmark book, The Conservative Mind.
A cool map showing how House members voted on the 1941 Lend-Lease Act. (Spoiler alert: it was the South and Northeast that pushed the bill over the finish line.)
Hot off the presses: Alex Priou’s new book, Defending Socrates: Political Philosophy Before the Tribunal of Science, is out. See more here.
Which structural factors affect fertility? Catherine Ruth Pakaluk and Darel Paul debate this for FUSION. (Speaking of structural factors for birth-rates, see also this Philip Pilkington article in American Affairs on capitalism, faith, and fertility.)
Taking off: Corbin Barthold on space policy.
Paths to the modern: I’m a longtime follower of (and occasional contributor to) the “Genealogies of Modernity” project, which includes a magazine and a podcast series. Well, Season 2 of the podcast is now live: “Each episode takes up a well-worn story about what it means to be modern and how we got here, and then challenges that narrative with recent humanities scholarship. Genealogies of Modernity illuminates lesser-known pathways to the present and unearths overlooked resources from the past for flourishing in the future.”
Santi Ruiz on the lessons of DARPA.
Thanks for reading—if you enjoyed, like, subscribe, and share.