Was MSNBC's Al Sharpton's NAN in compliance with election law

Now that we know that the Kamala Harris campaign paid both HARPO and NAN, owned by Oprah Winfree and the very right "Reverend" Al Sharpton, respectively, I wondered just how legal the payments were in terms of election law. 

In the Oprah [HARPO] case, a million dollars was paid for her endorsement, and in the National Action Network [NAN] case, the very incredibly Reverend Sharptongue did a powderpuff interview [see below if you have a strong stomach] to make Harris appear lucid and NAN received $500 thousand in two installments of $250 thousand.

Oprah said that she didn't take any payment for kissing up to Harris, but we all know her company did, so there's that.

On the other hand, the very incredible right, race baiter Reverend Al Sharptongue did a media interview with Harris and was able to pull off the idea to the public that Harris is a political genius with ideas that go beyond the burden of time. Is that really legal since his company received payment for it?

Well, I went to Grok and asked it this question: is it legal for a campaign to pay a member of the media who has their own company, money for an interview?

The answer Grok gave me was this:

In the United States, the legality of a political campaign paying a member of the media for an interview can be a nuanced issue due to several factors:

Disclosure Requirements: If a campaign pays for an interview, this payment must be disclosed. [My italics.] According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), any public communication that is paid for by a campaign, political party, or political action committee (PAC) requires a disclaimer identifying who paid for it. This means the media member or their company would need to reveal that the interview was paid for by the campaign.

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA): Contributions from corporations are prohibited, which could extend to payments for interviews if they're considered contributions rather than payments for services. However, if the media member's company is not incorporated or falls under a different legal structure like an LLC treated as a partnership, different rules might apply.

Personal Use of Campaign Funds:Campaign funds can be used for campaign-related expenses, but not for personal use. Paying for an interview might be seen as a campaign expense if it's clearly for the purpose of promoting the candidacy or discussing campaign issues.

Journalistic Ethics:Even if legal, accepting payment for interviews by journalists or media members can be ethically questionable. Many journalistic codes of ethics prohibit such payments to maintain impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

Independent Expenditures: If the media member's company is making an independent expenditure (not coordinated with the campaign), they could spend money on communications supporting or opposing candidates without violating contribution limits, as long as there's no coordination with the campaign.

Regulatory and Public Perception: While there might not be a direct legal prohibition against paying for an interview, the practice could attract scrutiny from regulatory bodies like the FEC or lead to public outcry if perceived as an attempt to buy media coverage or influence editorial content.

Conclusion: Legally, if the payment is disclosed and the media member's company complies with campaign finance laws (like not being a corporation that can't contribute directly to campaigns), it could be argued that it's permissible. However, this practice would be highly scrutinized for both legal compliance and ethical considerations. Campaigns often look for ways to engage with media, but direct payments for interviews might cross ethical lines for many in the journalism community, potentially affecting the credibility of both the journalist and the campaign.

So what do you think? 

It's incredible that the money NAN/Sharpton got from the Harris campaign was not disclosed and MSNBC needs to be held accountable.