Debs ran for president in the 1920 election while imprisoned
Eugene Debs ran for president in the 1920 election while imprisoned in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. He ran as a Socialist, so he only received a few percent of the popular vote, but there is precedent for a candidate running for president from prison.
Unlike Trump, who so far as we know is only being indicted on corruption charges -- allegedly concealing an illegal bribe during an election campaign -- Debs was convicted for making a speech in 1918 that encouraged people to resist the wartime draft. It was a freedom of speech issue, for a speech openly given in opposition to the war. Just as people are today thrown in jail by Russia for openly opposing its war. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, distinguishing political opinions -- which are covered by the First Amendment -- from illegally encouraging people to resist the draft.
Our modern Supreme Court has treated campaign spending as the equivalent of speech, when it has thrown out limitations on campaign spending. Could Trump's hush money payment be treated, somehow, as "speech" by the Supreme Court? It will be interesting watching this court case unfold, although I believe Democrats are prematurely celebrating Trump's supposed downfall. Democrats continue to think that publicizing Trump's lawlessness will dissuade his supporters. With Trump, there has never been such a thing as bad publicity. I think he would continue to run for president even while imprisoned, and I think he'd have a good chance of winning.
-----
Mr. Trump’s team said it had raised more than $4 million in the 24 hours after the indictment was made public.
Unlike Trump, who so far as we know is only being indicted on corruption charges -- allegedly concealing an illegal bribe during an election campaign -- Debs was convicted for making a speech in 1918 that encouraged people to resist the wartime draft. It was a freedom of speech issue, for a speech openly given in opposition to the war. Just as people are today thrown in jail by Russia for openly opposing its war. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, distinguishing political opinions -- which are covered by the First Amendment -- from illegally encouraging people to resist the draft.
Our modern Supreme Court has treated campaign spending as the equivalent of speech, when it has thrown out limitations on campaign spending. Could Trump's hush money payment be treated, somehow, as "speech" by the Supreme Court? It will be interesting watching this court case unfold, although I believe Democrats are prematurely celebrating Trump's supposed downfall. Democrats continue to think that publicizing Trump's lawlessness will dissuade his supporters. With Trump, there has never been such a thing as bad publicity. I think he would continue to run for president even while imprisoned, and I think he'd have a good chance of winning.
-----
Mr. Trump’s team said it had raised more than $4 million in the 24 hours after the indictment was made public.