Clinton confirmation: Bill’s charity still a problem for Hillary?
By David Clark Scott | International News Editor 01.13.09
Is Bill Clinton’s charity going to be a problem for Hillary as the new secretary of State?
Didn’t the Obama team dispense with this issue already?
Apparently Sen. Richard Lugar, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s top Republican, doesn’t think so.
“The core of the problem is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state,” Senator Lugar said in his opening statement at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s confirmation hearing Tuesday.
The Republican senator from Indiana wants the foundation to refuse any foreign donations in the future – and he wants more transparency.
Sheikhs and ordinary donors
The William J. Clinton Foundation has already disclosed a list of 200,000 donors that have contributed a total of more than $490 million since 2001.
Ninety percent of the donors gave $250 or less. But Lugar’s worried about the other 10 percent. Those big donors include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the government of Norway, assorted Middle Eastern sheikhs, and foreign government-linked aid and development groups.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with the Clinton foundation successfully raising funds to do good – what foundation doesn’t? No one questions the validity of the good being done by the foundation in 40 nations.
But both Clintons now want to avoid even a whiff of influence-buying from here on out.
Is there a precedent?
Sharon Theimer at the Associated Press cross-referenced the Clinton Foundation donor list with Sen. Hillary Clinton’s official activities. She found that the New York senator had “intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband’s foundation.”
Ms. Theimer writes:
The overlap of names on former President Bill Clinton’s foundation donor list and business interests whose issues she championed raise new questions about potential ethics conflicts between her official actions and her husband’s fundraising.
Sounds like the same thing that Lugar was concerned about.
Mrs. Clinton, I presume?
The Senate hearing offered the first window on a secretary of State who already has global name recognition.
Here’s what she said Tuesday about Iran:
“We are not taking any option off the table at all.”
Hmm. That sounds a lot like President Bush’s statement that “no option is off the table.”
But Sen. Clinton also implied that there may be another approach, using “smart power.”
We must also actively pursue a strategy of smart power in the Middle East that addresses the security needs of Israel and the legitimate political and economic aspirations of the Palestinians; that effectively challenges Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and sponsorship of terror, and persuades both Iran and Syria to abandon their dangerous behavior and become constructive regional actors…
As expected, she echoed the experts who expect an Obama foreign policy to be more pragmatic, and less ideological.
“Foreign policy must be based on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology, on facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice,” she told the senators.
<< Gaza bloggers relay crisis to outside world | MainComments
2. rhoadie | 01.13.09
The William J. Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative are both highly-regarded, and draw donations from diuverse sources. Their donor list is published on the Clinton Foundation website.
(http://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors/pages/page_1.html)
Given Clinton’s political and social status, and the diversity of the Foundation’s donor list, it would be amazing if there were no overlap. Business people who wish to donate money often solicit information about various foundations and charities from their political and social friends and colleagues. This isn’t illegal, immoral, or unethical. It’s only a problem if a company promises money - or a politician solicits money - in return for support before the fact, and there is no evidence at this point that either act occurred. If a business is actually pleased that a local politician has provided support - which is part of what politicians are supposed to do - that business is perfectly free to donate to a charity or foundation as a gesture of appreciation. Since neither of the Clintons draw a salary from the Foundation, it seems like a stretch to show criminal intent.
3. Sandra Madwar | 01.14.09
Please, if Ms.Sharon Theimer can discover that six times NY Sen. Hillary
Clinton used her position to intervene for her husband’s “benefit”, please,
please, can Mr. Obama find someone else more qualified to be our Sec. of State? Sen. Hillary Clinton and her husband have gotten away with so much, from their college days unto the present time, we could save our country from
any more shameful deeds. Do not confirm her as our Secretay of State!
4. Penn Taylor | 01.14.09
“She [Theimer] found that the New York senator had ‘intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband’s foundation.’”
So the causal chain looks like this: Hillary Clinton does something that benefits a company, then later that company gives money to the foundation.
Unless this can be shown to be a pattern that involves making a quid pro quo deal beforehand, I don’t see how this could possibly be distinguished from mere coincidence or from Clinton making what she thought was a sensible policy decision and the company later saying, “You know, that Clinton thinks like us. Maybe we’ll donate money to Billy’s foundation.”
I’d be a lot more suspicious if the causal chain were like this: Company donates a big chunk of money to the foundation, and Clinton subsequently acts in a manner contrary to her previous policy actions in a situation that would benefit that company.
It’s also important to look at the scale of this: 10% of 200,000 is still 20,000 large donors. By cross-checking lists, Theimer has located *6* potentially suspicious deals? That’s an issue with 0.03% of the large donors. I’m going to go with coincidence as the explanation unless a lot more detailed information comes out.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. SF2OAK | 01.13.09
This is a crime waiting to be discovered. They, Obama & the Clinton’s, have negotiated the disclosure issue to weaken it. disclosures will be made once a year, and miraculously prior donations to the Clinton Global Initiative are to remain secret. Incroyable. I understand how American’s fell for Obama but please a little light and scrutiny, apply liberally.