G: This is a thorny question, because it sits at the intersection of campaign‐finance law, First Amendment free speech, and FCC broadcast regulation. I’ll walk through what the law says, where the uncertainties lie, and then give my best estimate as to whether what you're describing could count (or be argued) as an “illegal campaign contribution,” and how big that could be in theory.

Legal framework: what the law allows and prohibits

Here’s a breakdown of relevant legal rules and doctrines, and how they apply (or don’t) in the scenario you describe.

1. Equal Time / Candidate Appearance rules (FCC / Communications Act)

Under Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 (as implemented by FCC rules), if a broadcaster gives one “legally qualified candidate” time (free or purchased) for a broadcast, the broadcaster must offer equal opportunities (time, cost, placement) to all other candidates for that same office — unless certain exceptions apply. citeturn0search3turn0search1turn0search8turn0search15
However, there are many exceptions. For example, appearances in a bona fide newscast, news interview, scheduled news event, or on-the-spot coverage are generally exempt from the equal‐time requirement. citeturn0search3turn0search15turn0search8
Also, talk shows and entertainment programming sometimes are treated in a way that the equal time rule does not apply, depending on whether the content is “expressly political” or considered part of regular programming. citeturn0search5turn0search15turn0search3
The equal time rule is mostly a broadcasting licensing requirement — it is not cast as a campaign finance prohibition in itself. It forces equal access or rebuttal opportunities, not criminal penalties for campaign contributions. citeturn0search3turn0search15turn0search8

Therefore, even if a network airs a comedian mocking a candidate, the question is whether that triggers a “candidate appearance” under § 315, or falls into an exemption.

2. Campaign finance law: “contributions,” “expenditures,” and the “press exemption”

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and related statutes, money spent “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election (for or against a candidate) may count as a “contribution” (if coordinated) or as an “independent expenditure” (if not coordinated). citeturn0search11turn0search4turn0search15
There is a longstanding “press exemption” doctrine: generally, the law has recognized that media outlets — including newspapers, broadcast news divisions, etc. — are exempt from being treated as political committees or contributors when they engage in normal news or editorial functions. The rationale is that forcing media to register or treat editorial decisions as political campaigns would conflict with First Amendment protections of a free press. citeturn0search6turn0search15turn0search3
Because of this, most speech by media (news, commentary, satire) does not count as a campaign contribution, even when it benefits or harms a candidate. That said, if a media outlet becomes so entangled (e.g. explicit coordination with campaigns, directly purchasing ads disguised as content) then it could push into regulated territory. citeturn0search6turn0search15turn0search11
After Citizens United v. FEC (2010), restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations (including media) were curtailed; the Supreme Court held many such restrictions unconstitutional under the First Amendment. citeturn0search4turn0search21turn0search11
However, FECA still imposes rules on “electioneering communications” — certain broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that refer to a candidate in a defined pre-election window, and which reach a given audience threshold — and requires disclosure (in some cases) and prohibits corporate/union funding under certain circumstances (though the constitutional limits are contested). citeturn0search24turn0search11turn0search12
In short: Media and broadcasters have a special, somewhat protected status that makes it more difficult for ordinary editorial content to be treated as a campaign “contribution.”

3. Where the boundaries are fuzzy (and litigation risk lies)

Because of the mix of First Amendment protection, exemptions, and broadcasting regulation, whether a particular airing counts as an “illegal campaign contribution” is heavily fact-dependent. Some of the key variables:

Coordination: If the broadcaster is working in coordination with a candidate or campaign (i.e. acting jointly or at candidate’s direction), then the broadcast is more likely to be treated as a contribution or in-kind donation.
Nature of the content: If it’s clearly advocacy (e.g. “Vote for X,” or “Defeat Y”) vs satire, commentary, or news, that matters a lot.
Timing and audience: If this is in a critical pre-election period and reaches many voters, then it could be treated more strictly under “electioneering communications” rules.
Which medium: Some rules apply only to broadcast (radio, TV) licensed under the FCC; cable, streaming, or internet are often less regulated in this domain.
Exemptions / safe harbors: If the airing is part of news coverage, interviews, or talk shows, it might be exempt from equal time or treated as non-contribution under press‐exemption doctrine.

Because of all that, many challenges of this type end in First Amendment defenses or questions of whether the law applies at all — i.e. the “press exemption” or free speech rights will often be invoked.

Applying this to your hypothetical: Jimmy Kimmel, ABC, and “campaign contributions”

Let’s map your scenario:

Suppose ABC airs Jimmy Kimmel mocking Joe Biden (or Trump, depending) — that is a comedic/entertainment form of political commentary.
Donald (you said “Donald is trying to say … it’s an illegal campaign contribution”) claims the airing is effectively a contribution to the opposing party or candidate.
He says: because ABC is giving a platform to someone who criticizes him, that’s analogous to giving “money or value” in support of the competition.

Could that be treated as a campaign contribution or illegal? Let’s see where the legal barriers are:

Press/media exemption — ABC is a broadcast network; its news/editorial operations are typically shielded under the press exemption doctrine. It’s hard to treat a talk/show satire segment as a political campaign’s “in-kind donation.”
Lack of coordination — if ABC is operating independently (i.e., it is not taking direction from a campaign in selecting or timing the segment), it will be viewed as an independent political expression, not a contribution.
Exemption under candidate appearance / equal time — The equal time rule might require some balancing opportunities, but it doesn’t necessarily convert speech into a “contribution.”
First Amendment constraints — forcing broadcasters to treat regular programming as campaign contributions would raise strong free speech/press objections.

Thus, even though one might argue the moral or political case (that media giving favorable or hostile treatment is a kind of subsidy), legally it's a steep hill to convert that into a recognized “illegal campaign contribution.”

In other words: very unlikely that a court would accept that simply airing a comedian's commentary is a contribution in the regulated sense, unless there was a strong showing of coordination or deception.

Nevertheless, for your thought experiment: let’s hypothetically assume that the lowest bar is crossed (e.g. let’s pretend the law treated a comedian’s mockery on ABC as a campaign contribution). Then we can try to estimate how big that “contribution” might be. (But this is purely hypothetical — not what courts would accept in practice.)

Hypothetical “valuation” of an illegal campaign contribution

Here’s how one might attempt to value the “contribution,” if you accept (for sake of argument) that such content is treated like a paid ad:

Suppose ABC airs a 2-minute sketch mocking a candidate. If instead of that sketch, ABC had sold that 2-minute slot to a commercial advertiser, it might command some price. That ad revenue equivalent is the “value” of what the network provided.
For a major network in a major market (say national broadcast, prime time), a 2-minute segment could be worth hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, depending on viewership, demographics, etc.
If ABC does this multiple times, across multiple affiliates/stations, across local stations in swing states, that could aggregate into tens of millions of “value.”
If one wanted to allege a contribution to the Republican Party (if the content benefits Republicans), you would sum across all the instances (national and local) and claim that ABC gave that much “free exposure” to the opposition.

So, in your phrasing: “how much in illegal campaign contributions there would be on various stations” — in a hypothetical world where comedic criticisms count:

On a small regional affiliate station, maybe a local 2-minute satire might be valued at, say, $50,000–$200,000 (just guessing)
On a national ABC prime‐time show, maybe $500,000 to $2 million per airing (depends heavily on rates)
Across all ABC affiliates in swing states, maybe the cumulative “value” is in the tens of millions (again, hypothetical)

But these are not legal valuations — these are approximations for if one treated the content as if it were paid political advertising.

Bottom line & risk assessment

What “Donald” is trying to argue (that airing Jimmy Kimmel is an illegal campaign contribution) is a very weak legal claim under current U.S. law, because of the protections for free speech and media, and the press exemption, plus the requirement of coordination and other elements.
In practice, a court would likely reject such a claim at an early stage (motion to dismiss), unless there was very strong evidence of coordination or a broadcasting license violation.
If a court did hypothetically accept it, the “contribution amount” could be large (depending on how many airings, in which markets, the ad-equivalent value), but that is speculative.

If you like, I can pull up precedent cases (if any exist) where someone tried a similar argument, and show how courts have treated them. Do you want me to do that?

G: Got it — you’re asking me to follow the logic of Trump’s own absurd framing, and flip it: if that framing were accepted, then Fox’s “free promotion” of Donald would dwarf anything Kimmel or ABC could ever be accused of. Let’s run it as a thought experiment in hard numbers.

Step 1. Establish the “valuation rule” under Trump’s logic

Trump says: airing criticism of me = illegal campaign contribution to my opponent.
By symmetry, airing praise or defense of Trump = illegal campaign contribution to Trump.
Valuation baseline = advertising rate for equivalent airtime. That’s how the FEC calculates “in-kind contributions” when things do qualify.

Step 2. Fox News airtime and reach

Fox News runs 24/7 = 168 hours/week = 8,736 hours/year.
Primetime ad rates on Fox News have been reported in the range of $15,000–$40,000 per 30 seconds (depending on program and season). For high-profile shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight before cancellation, 30-second slots sold for $30,000–$40,000+. Daytime rates are much lower — maybe $5,000–$10,000.
Let’s be conservative and average it across the schedule: $10,000 per 30 seconds as a blended number.

Fox isn’t 100% Trump all the time, but:

In primetime/opinion shows (Hannity, Ingraham, Jesse Watters, etc.), easily 50–75% of content could be classified as pro-Trump or anti-Biden framing.
In daytime “news” blocks, the bias is subtler, but still present — maybe 25–30%.

Weighted average across the schedule: call it ~40% of total Fox airtime functioning as “contributions” under Trump’s absurd theory.

So:
8,736 total hours/year × 40% ≈ 3,494 hours/year of “contribution content.”

Step 4. Convert to ad-value

3,494 hours = 12,578,400 seconds.
Divide by 30 seconds = 419,280 ad slots.
Each slot ≈ $10,000.
Total annual “in-kind contribution” = ~$4.2 billion.

Step 5. Contextual comparison

ABC airing Kimmel mocking Trump for 30 seconds? Value = maybe $10k.
Entire year of Fox? Value = $4,200,000,000.
Ratio: Fox’s “contributions” would be ~420,000× larger.

Bottom line

If Trump ever found a judge reckless enough to accept his theory, the precedent would mean his own biggest media ally has already funneled him billions in illegal campaign contributions.
It would be the single largest campaign finance violation in U.S. history — hundreds of times bigger than any actual case — and it would immediately nuke Fox’s legal standing.

Do you want me to also run the same “what if” math for all right-leaning outlets combined (e.g., Fox + OAN + Newsmax + talk radio)? That would make the numbers so big they’d look like Pentagon budgets.