"You can't sue, or at least you can't win any kind of $$$ as a result of a lawsuit, or at the very least you can't settle a lawsuit for $$$ if you could possibly use that $$$ for campaigns or if you could use it to pay off loans from a past campaign."
(or maybe that but where "you" == Trump).
A rule of that sort would mean that you'd have no recourse whatsoever against any torts interfering with your political campaigns. Utilities could cut water, gas, electric, and sewer services to campaign headquarters for any campaigns they don't like. Etc.
That cannot be a rule. Perhaps a no-settlements rule would be OK -- you have to win at trial or you get nothing (and loser pays).
In this case I'd say that on the one hand a settlement has the potential to be a bribe since we don't know what a trial might have yielded, but also that $25m is objectively not very much considering Meta's action and its impact on the Trump campaign. That the Trump campaign has no debt (I think?) and it's over and he can't run for re-election, all mitigates the settlement resembling a bribe.
In the United States of America private corporations can refuse to permit a presidential candidate to use their platform. Meta had a very strong first amendment defense. ABC had a very strong defense against the libel case because most of us agree that sticking a finger into someone's vagina without them asking for it is in fact rape. CBS got sued over damages for misdescribing an interview with his opponent. He won that election. What damages are there? The NY Times has reported that CBS executives view the settlement as a way to win favor.
"You can't sue, or at least you can't win any kind of $$$ as a result of a lawsuit, or at the very least you can't settle a lawsuit for $$$ if you could possibly use that $$$ for campaigns or if you could use it to pay off loans from a past campaign."
(or maybe that but where "you" == Trump).
A rule of that sort would mean that you'd have no recourse whatsoever against any torts interfering with your political campaigns. Utilities could cut water, gas, electric, and sewer services to campaign headquarters for any campaigns they don't like. Etc.
That cannot be a rule. Perhaps a no-settlements rule would be OK -- you have to win at trial or you get nothing (and loser pays).
In this case I'd say that on the one hand a settlement has the potential to be a bribe since we don't know what a trial might have yielded, but also that $25m is objectively not very much considering Meta's action and its impact on the Trump campaign. That the Trump campaign has no debt (I think?) and it's over and he can't run for re-election, all mitigates the settlement resembling a bribe.