A federal appeals court appeared unlikely to reverse a Republican political operative’s conviction for funneling political contributions from a Russian billionaire to former President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard Jesse Benton’s challenge on Monday in a case that delved into complex campaign finance laws and communications to the jury at trial.

Benton, a one-time aide and grandson-in-law to Ron Paul, the former Texas GOP congressman and presidential candidate, is fighting his conviction on six counts of campaign finance violations and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

On appeal, Benton has challenged instructions given to the jury on how to consider a since-pardoned campaign finance conviction, and how a political contribution should’ve been defined.

Judge Florence Pan signaled she was inclined to find that Benton had missed his chance to challenge jury instructions at trial.

“I don’t see why you’re relieved of your obligation to contemporaneously object at the time the jury instructions are submitted,” Pan said. “You agreed to the jury instructions that were given, and now you’re challenging the same jury instructions that you co-sponsored.”

Judge Karen Henderson similarly questioned why Benton “couldn’t have lodged an objection to this” at the time.

Still, when questioning Justice Department lawyer, W. Connor Winn, she raised concerns about the instruction allowing the jury to consider Benton’s earlier campaign finance conviction in 2016 for which he was pardoned by Trump.

“I would think a lay juror would think, if he did the first one, he did this one,” she said.

Pan also appeared skeptical of Benton’s argument taking issue with the government’s decision to charge him under both the Federal Election Campaign Act and a financial recordkeeping law. Benton’s lawyer, Nicholas Harper of Gibson Dunn, told the judges that these statutes weren’t meant to overlap.

“The government routinely charges overlapping statutes,” Pan said. “What you’re proposing is extremely novel.”

Judge Bradley Garcia also said that the distance in time between when the two statutes were passed, and “what is going on” in the more recent recordkeeping statute, “might be a problem for you.”

Foreign Money

Benton was once a force in Republican politics. He also managed Senate campaigns for Kentucky Republicans Rand Paul, Ron Paul’s son, and Mitch McConnell, now minority leader.

Benton was indicted in 2021 after prosecutors said he solicited a sizable contribution from Roman Vasilenko, labeling it as consulting services and then giving some of the funds to Trump’s campaign committee.

According to prosecutors, Vasilenko wired Benton $100,000, and Benton in exchange arranged for Vasilenko to visit the US and attend a fundraising event for Trump, where the businessman could meet and take a photo with him.

Benton then sent $25,000 to Trump’s fundraising committee to cover Vasilenko’s ticket, and didn’t disclose that the money came from Vasilenko, prosecutors said.

Campaign finance laws prohibit foreign nationals from making contributions to political committees, or related to federal presidential elections.

Benton was initially indicted in the scheme alongside Douglas Wead, a former official in the George H. W. Bush administration. Wead died before trial.

At the appeals court, Benton’s lawyers honed in on Vasilenko’s intent when providing the funds to Benton.

In court filings, they argued that Vasilenko “had no interest” in US politics and didn’t provide the funds for the purpose of swaying the campaign, and that the government had provided “bare bones” evidence to the contrary. They also contended the jury had been “misled” in instructions related to this issue.

Benton’s team also took issue with the lower court’s decision to allow his prior conviction to be raised at trial.

“The district court’s decision to admit Mr. Benton’s prior conviction contravened the President’s judgment that he is innocent of those offenses and improperly swayed the jury to convict,” Benton said in court papers.

The government said in court papers that Benton had asserted a “novel argument” on the standard for a political contribution, and regardless, that they had presented “ample evidence” that Vasilenko intended to influence the election.

The case is: USA v. Jesse Benton, D.C. Cir., No. 23-3028 Oral Argument