Riddle me this?

So the theory here is that a $130K payment to Stormy Daniels as part of a non-disclosure agreement was in fact a "campaign contribution" and therefor illegal (as it would be in excess of what the individual in question could conceivably give to a campaign).

Keeping in mind that the main reason why the FBI is going about this as a matter regarding campaign finance and banking fraud... is because the sort of non-disclosure agreement made with Stormy Daniels is not (in and of itself) illegal. Otherwise Cohen would simply be charged with the illegal action of paying someone off for their silence. But of course, there is no such statute banning it.

So it would logically follow that rather than have Michael Cohen pay for the non-disclosure agreement (because it is being viewed as some sort of campaign expense), then the legal thing to do would have been to have the campaign itself make the payment to Stormy Daniels?

Really?

However, the FEC specifically bans the use of campaign funds that would otherwise exist irrespective to the campaign. Only expenses that exist because of the campaign can be (and must be) paid from campaign funds. The language of the law states very clearly that a campaign cannot pay for an expense otherwise just related to a candidate or candidacy. This avoids any chance that a candidate would use campaign funds to take care of personal business.

So the idea that the Cohen payment to Stormy Daniels is a campaign contribution, would suggest that the FBI considers the use of a non-disclosure contract to buy silence ("hush money") to be a legitimate type of campaign expense. Because if it is not a legitimate type of campaign expense, then you cannot charge someone with a violation of campaign contribution limits.

However, the use of "hush money" has never been considered a legitimate use of campaign funds. In fact, the use of campaign funds to buy silence was one of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon.

Seems like a strange argument to make, doesn't it? It would appear that this otherwise perfectly legal non-disclosure contract is actually being argued to have been illegal regardless of how it is paid for? Sort of a typical use of legal gymnastics that has been routinely applied to Trump and anyone associated with him.