Convicted felon Charles Kushner, father of Jared Kushner, has donated a million dollars to a Super PAC supporting former President Donald Trump. Charles Kushner had been prosecuted by Chris Christie, now a GOP presidential hopeful, and had previously pleaded guilty to a variety of crimes which include assisting in the filing of false tax returns and making false statements to the Federal Election Commission. His convictions led to his disbarment, following which he served his sentence and carried on with his real estate enterprise, Kushner Companies, which was making billion-dollar deals just months after Kushner completed his term.
In the final days of his term, Trump, who is his son-in-law’s father, pardoned Charles Kushner. The pardon was part of a series of somewhat controversial pardons that were issued prior to the mob attack on the US Capitol. Trump’s evident disregard for potential criticism given the familial ties raised more than a few eyebrows.
In the following period, Charles Kushner made a significant contribution of $1 million to Trump’s leading super PAC. While there are no legal prohibitions to prevent the recipient of a pardon from making significant political donations to benefit the politician who issued the pardon, the actions of Charles Kushner raises an important debate. As the situation stands, it sends a clear signal that can be exploited by those looking for similar potential pardons in the future.
Limiting the political contributions of recipients of pardons could be one way to address this. This could add an acceptable limitation to the Supreme Court’s stand that money is speech and corporations are people. While these contributions don’t necessarily prove a quid pro quo, they certainly raise questions.
To anyone who is not a legal enthusiast or a strong partisan, this substantial contribution to the super PAC of the individual who pardoned you appears suspiciously like paying for a pardon. The vague stand of the constitution regarding the limitations of the president’s pardon power adds to the ambiguity surrounding this practice.
To preserve the integrity of democracy, such loopholes need to be addressed. This incident reiterates the need for more explicit guidelines in the engagement between politicians and their contributors, specifically those who have received pardons, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.