A Hil of beans
Hillary Clinton, potential future President, and Bill Clinton, highly paid globetrotting past President, are considering the future of their charitable family foundation. The sooner they disentangle from the organization the better in that the foundation’s fundraising would pose endless ethical questions for a President or even a President-elect. As Bill Clinton wrote: “If Hillary is elected President, the Foundation’s work, funding, global reach, and my role in it will present questions that must be resolved in a way that keeps the good work going while eliminating legitimate concerns about potential conflicts of interest.”
The former President said that if Clinton is elected, he would stop fundraising and the foundation would stop accepting donations from foreign governments and corporations. It would, however, continue to accept money from U.S. citizens, permanent residents and American foundations.
He’s going only so far in an attempt to maintain the foundation’s operations, which very well may not be possible with an election victory.
Clinton is shadowed by controversy because the foundation reaped big donations while she was secretary of state, including from foreign governments.
Although the foundation met disclosure requirements, with one exception, many have fairly concluded that Clinton’s official role boosted donations.
Additionally, official emails obtained and released by a conservative advocacy organization show the foundation chief communicating with a top Clinton aide, provoking charges of favoritism toward donors.
The more reasonable critics say that the Clintons leveraged heading the State Department for donations. The irrational, such as Donald Trump, allege that Clinton engaged in criminal activity on the order of Watergate.
Against that backdrop, the controversy is best understood by facts that are often left out.
What’s not said is that the foundation failed to produce. It has, in fact, delivered good works, including AIDS prevention and the introduction of farming techniques in Africa, tree planting in Haiti and early childhood education in the U.S.
What’s not said is that the foundation wasted money. A respected charity watchdog gave it a top rating for spending funds on programs rather than on administration.
What’s not said is that Clinton did anything substantial for a contributor. The foundation chief sought a meeting for the crown prince of Bahrain that took place — either because of the request or through official channels.
The worst that has been revealed is that an unqualified giver got a spot on an intelligence advisory committee. Watergate?
What’s not said is that foreign governments often donated in order to fund programs in their own countries.
What’s not said is that the 85 private sector donors who met or had phone calls with Clinton over a two-year period, according to an Associated Press count, appear to have included people with whom she had valid reason to speak. The late Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel was among them.
This is a storm whose “quids” in terms of donations are substantial but whose “quos” are generally trivial, and whose “pros” are invisible.
Still, the White House is not the teapot for this tempest.