NYT SAYS LOGAN ACT CLEARLY APPLIES TO FLYNN AND TO ANYONE ELSE NYT CHOOSES

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

Subsequently, Logan himself was appointed and then elected as a Democratic-Republican to the United States Senate from Pennsylvania, and served from July 13, 1801, to March 3, 1807. He was unsuccessful in getting the Logan Act repealed. Despite the Logan Act, he went to England in 1810 on a private diplomatic mission as an emissary of peace in the period before the outbreak of the War of 1812, but was not successful.

See Wikipedia for a discussion.

It seems to me that the Act would be a useful tool, in the proper hands, for cleaning up the media itself!

Powerful media companies doubtless violate this law countless times in a week, on the international desks, and through foreign correspondents.

Politicians, and especially former politicians now lobbyists, not just Trump, but especially private corporate executives, violate it, constantly. Think tank guys, second nature to violate it....
Here is Trump:

In July 2016, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack accused Donald Trump of encouraging the Russian government to hack the email of Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 presidential election. Several other Democratic Senators claimed Trump's comments appeared to violate the Logan Act

In 2006, the United States House Committee on Ethics warned departing members of the terms of the Act in an official Memorandum. The Committee commented in the Memorandum that the Act, "...has never been the basis of a prosecution, and this Committee has publicly questioned its constitutionality... Members should be aware, however, that the law remains on the books.

It is obviously a piece of shit, as drafted.

However, it seems ripe for wider, if unconstitutional, use, in a wide post McCarthyite sting, against rogue liberal journalists, and all politicians.

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.
Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States—that I had come to listen and learn..." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.
Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953

How bout SNL/ Alec Baldwin? Etc., the whole cast really.

Although the title of the act says private correspondence, the actual body of the law, which is the operative part, fails to so state.

This law is not limited, by its terms, only to private correspondence, whatever even that now can be taken to mean, at all.