There is little question among most Americans that many mainstream media outlets, such as The Washington Post, for example, are hopelessly biased politically in favor of Democrats over Republicans, which is reflected in how those outlets cover both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.

The Trump campaign has now filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission that accuses The Washington Post of providing, and the Harris campaign of accepting, illegal and unreported in-kind campaign contributions, the New York Post reported.

The complaint calls for the FEC to open investigations into both The Post and the Harris campaign and, if violations of FEC regulations are discovered, to impose the appropriate penalties and sanctions.

The Washington Post's paid ads for articles advocating for Harris

At issue here is a Semafor report on what The Washington Post has done this week to stem the flood of subscription cancelations by Democrat-aligned readers after billionaire owner Jeff Bezos disallowed a formal endorsement of VP Harris by the newspaper's editorial board.

The reaction from The Post was to try to win back some of those disaffected readers with a massive increase of paid ads on various social media platforms to boost its articles and ensure they appear in users' feeds.

That is a problem, however, in that all of the Harris-related articles were either positive or neutral about her candidacy while, without exception, the Trump-related articles were exceedingly negative about his candidacy.

The move appears to be an effort by The Post to circumvent their boss Bezos' prohibition against a formal endorsement of Harris by overtly reminding readers of exactly where the publication stands on the two presidential nominees for next week's election.

The FEC complaint

In a six-page filing with the FEC on Thursday, attorneys for the Trump campaign wrote, "'Democracy Dies in Darkness' according to The Washington Post, yet on the eve of the 2024 general election, it is the Post that reportedly is conducting a dark money corporate campaign in opposition to President Donald J. Trump -- pretextually using its own online advertising efforts to promote Kamala Harris’s presidential candidacy."

The attorneys argued that the paid ads provide "reason to believe" that The Post has violated FEC regulations against "illegal corporate in-kind contributions" or, alternatively, "unreported last-minute independent expenditures," both of which should be investigated.

The filing proceeded to explain how the paid ads to promote The Post's articles, which evidence suggests were written with at least some coordination with the Harris campaign, provide "reason to believe The Washington Post has made coordinated communications, which constitute illegal corporate in-kind contributions to Harris for President, and that Harris for President has accepted such contributions."

Yet, even if the paid ads to promote Post articles coordinated with the Harris campaign somehow don't qualify as illegal in-kind contributions, then they at least appear to be "independent expenditures" on behalf and in support of the campaign that should be reported to the FEC.

The attorneys also sought to preemptively oppose a likely defense from The Post that they are exempt from the FEC regulations as a "media" or "press" organization, given the overt lack of neutrality or objectivity and the unmistakable advocacy for one candidate over the other.

An investigation should occur followed by appropriate "sanction" or "penalty" for alleged violations

In conclusion, the Trump campaign's FEC complaint asserted that there was a "reasonable inference" to be made that The Post provided, and the Harris campaign accepted, illegal in-kind contributions or, at the very least, unreported expenditures in support of the campaign, both of which must be investigated.

Further, if illegal in-kind contributions are discovered, the FEC should "assess an appropriate sanction for this corporate interference in our elections," while if it is determined that The Post's ads were unreported expenditures, the commission should "assess an appropriate penalty for this infusion of dark money into the 2024 campaign."