I was one of the three that originally voted to delete the answer. The main reason I decided to delete was that it didn't answer the question being asked, and didn't seem to do anything (to me) other than attempt to muddy the waters of what the question was about.
No. A non-disclosure agreement is not, as far as am aware, "illegal" in and of itself.
No one said that they are. The question is about can a campaign pay ex-staff for silence legally. This fact has nothing to do with the question.
A contract is not "hush money".
This is true, but money given for someone's silence is. Whether that consideration is drawn up in a written contract or not is immaterial.
That is engagement in pure speculation without at least citing the law and specific section of that law which directly address the popular culture phrase "pay for an outgoing staff member's silence".
The premise of the question lacks evidence to support the theory of an NDA being remotely related to any "campaign finance" laws or regulation; the theory is attached to an unknown "talking head". Again, pure speculation without the ability to attribute the theory to any actual person.
Someone heard a talking head and wanted to verify what they were hearing. They had a gap in their knowledge and were unable to evaluate what they were hearing, so they turned to Politics.SE to fill in that gap. Regardless of where the theory originated, the question asks, basically, "Is this true?" What does it matter the identity of this talking head in order to answer this question? If they provided the identity, would that change how you would answer the question, and instead would the answer just be about how so-and-so was wrong so many times before? How is it relevant?
The theory substantially lacks all merit unless such a law can be cited. Even then, without the conduct having occurred, the inquiry leads back to pure speculation and clearly indicates an interest in attempting to find or created some situation by which conduct could be pointed as as being "illegal" - not in a court of law, but rather, in the court of public opinion.
The question is asking the answerer to cite a law. If no such law exists, then that is a valid answer. The answerer could have said so and I wouldn't have voted to delete it. But just saying that because someone asking a question (which is specifically asking for the law) didn't cite it means obviously it is not illegal is not a fact. After attacking the "theory," the answerer launches directly into their own hypothetical assuming that the conduct did not occur. That is not a fact, currently it is supposition. Still, whether it happened or not is not relevant, because the question asks, in bold: "Would it be illegal--specifically as a matter of campaign finance--for a campaign to pay for an outgoing staff member's silence?" This is a general question, and deserves a generalized answer regardless of the specifics that inspired it.
No charges or allegations of "campaign finance" violations of "illegal" conduct relating to personnel contracts have been announced by any federal agency in this matter.
There is someone out there saying it did occur. There are those out there saying that it did not. Since this (when asked) is only just the most recent of Trump-related scandals, perhaps the federal agencies are currently investigating? If they are, I would expect that information to be a part of an answer claiming that it is "not against the law." Simply pointing out that no conclusions have yet been reached in something very recent again just muddies the water.
No. There is no rational reason to conclude that the proffering of, acceptance or refusal to accept the terms of a contract are "illegal" or in violation on its face of any campaign finance laws or administrative regulations.
The answerer did not include the relevant parts of what people are claiming in this context, so I can think of many counter-examples where offering and/or accepting contract terms are illegal (the hiring of hitmen, prositution, buying / shipping illegal narcotics). Those don't hit on the campaign finance laws part, but they are illegal, and people go to jail for doing those things. Any contract that as part of its terms asks someone to violate campaign finance law would also invalidate this claim.
What I would personally expect from a really good "No" answer to this question is to explore where the "No" breaks down, because that would provide extra context to the person asking the question about campaign finance law. To me the answer is just extra noise, so I voted to delete it. I didn't really want to break down and critique the answer when I clicked the delete link, it simply rubbed me the wrong way from its general tone and dismissiveness. By that time there were already plenty of comments that captured my general sentiment.
If it helps, I have been guilty of this myself before, and the
jackboots moderators and others were kind enough to offer constructive criticism to help me update my contributed content to something less partisan and more aligned with this community's standards.