Apparently, many people think “Crowdfunding” is the title of her next movie.
How can there really be any legal problem with this?
More scrutiny placed upon donors to this crowdfund than any single member of the White House. Mmkay.
"But the truth is, no one knows precisely who is funding the effort…It does bring up some ethical concerns in terms of who is actually giving this money and whether they will try to exert influence.”
Absolutely!
Thank G-d the AP has decided to concern troll this.
But enough about Trump’s businesses, foundation, campaign, inauguration, legal defense, and slush fund.
And Trump and his sycophants are using RNC campaign funds to pay their legal bills.
What even is the AP? Does someone privately own it? Why is it so unbelievably bad at reporting?
As long as she’s careful to include it as income in her tax forms, there really isn’t. She might need an accountant who is versed in handling crowdfunding income, but I think those are getting pretty common.
From the VonHolst Weather Bureau.
AP is reporting many clouds and shadows, though nowhere near the record clouds and shadows reported by AP in 2016 for the Clinton Foundation. Now, here are some temperatures from around the nation: 55, 71, 83 and, a scorcher, 99.
And Project Veritas only accepts donation from unbiased, nonpolitical fans of guerilla journalism.
This line of attack is weak at best. So I will assume that CNN will pick it up and run with it.
I’ve sensed over the past couple of days signs of a GOP counterattack. Stories about “Democrats worried about election”, Concern trolls worried about Avenatti’s funding, reports of his “business failures” (like Donnie doesn’t have anything like that in his past that would call his judgement into question), and other rumblings.
Not to say it’s all as obvious as somebody in Trumplandia calling up the head of AP and telling them how to pitch a story, but we’re definitely seeing a concerted attempt at retaking control of the narrative. Thank Dog that the American media isn’t so consolidated that a mere six companies control 90 percent of the media, or we’d be in real danger of this strategery have some major impact! 
Never forget that the primary purpose of these corporations is to make a profit for their stockholders or owners. These are not charitable organizations. Accurately informing the puublic is at best a secondary goal. I instinctively keep this in mind at all times.
the Big red thug Machine wurlitzer is cranking up methinks Avenetti will out fox them. lol American Patriots will win the real real Americans
Yup. I never blame the CEO of a company in the capitalist system for their attempts to achieve a monopoly, or to attempt to exercise that monopoly power - it’s what they’re programmed to do.
The problem for the United States, as I see it, is that we’ve abandoned (or never fully embraced) the concept of a “public good”, or the concept that there are things we need to do together. This leads to all sorts of pathologies, not the least of which is tolerance for the entrenchment of monopolies, duopolies or oligarchies in general. We seem to be losing (or have lost?) the idea that such singular concentrations of power weaken our institutions and it’s okay to use anti-trust law and government in general to prevent their formation.
I personally see one of the most important roles of government is to “keep a thumb on the scale” so that no one leg of the triad of Labor, Capital and Management can get too strong. It’s great that Andrew Carnegie built all those libraries, but he should never have been allowed to build his empire the way he did, which gave him the money to do that.
For a while we did seem to be learning some lessons,(we did act when Microsoft got too big for it’s market and started to abuse its position) but today we seem paralyzed in the face of media concentration, communications concentration (AT&T and Time Warner, anyone?) and many other areas. Heck, all those monopolists are now monopolizing Congress and the White House!
But at least we punished Hilary for her use of a private email server (as did Condie Rice and Colin Powell!) 
Based on this article I don’t see anything amiss.
Its not a legal problem, its a potential ethical problem. The ethical problem being raised would be that some wealthy patron is making the vast majority of these donations and is directing Avenatti to conduct a strategy that is damaging to Trump, but not beneficial to his actual client, Daniels.
There is absolutely zero evidence that is happening, however.
What we are seeing, is a stream of articles that raise “clouds and shadows” about Avenatti. Which is a pretty good indication that he has some very powerful people really spooked.
Lets not forget Peter Theil secretly bankrolled the destruction of Gawker. No one cared
Wade
I would like to know who is paying for the “clouds and shadows” stories. Finding out would be a journalistic coup.
Today’s episode of How the AP Still Epitomizes Everything Wrong With Journalism" is brought to you by the letter “P” for “Puke Funnel.”
Headline: “Stormy Daniels’ Crowdfunding For Trump Legal Battle Sparks Scrutiny.”
Truth: 14,000 separate donors.
Very Concerning Concern: theoretically, one of these contributors might try to exert control or something or other.
So, whose scrutiny, has been drawn, exactly? Why, let us dive down to paragraph 70 and see if we can find out. Oh, look, it’s drawing the very concerned, very serious “scrutiny” of Laura Ingraham, the Daily Caller and an opinion piece from one of the Hill’s stable of tendentious right wing hacks who spew nonsense to keep the right wing readers happy.
And from this Very Serious Scrutiny, a story of Both Sides and Deep Concern is born. Experts are consulted and select sentences demonstrate the very concerning nature of this thing of concern.
This is how it worked for years. This is how we got here. Right wing oppo teams puke into the funnels jammed into the mouths of right wing media, right wing media craps out turds of concern and these turds, having come from “journalists,” have become news because right wing media crapped them which means AP picks them up, eats them and re-regurgiates them into the mainstream.
You make it sound so icky! But ummm, I guess it is…