Donor access questions are legitimate

New revelations about big-money donors to the Clinton Foundation and their access to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state raise legitimate questions about her judgment, despite the otherwise good work of the public charity — and her camp

The Associated Press reported this week that more than half of the people outside of the government who met with Clinton during her early years at the State Department contributed as much as $156 million to the foundation. Of the 85 that The AP identified, 40 gave more than $100,000 and 20 gave more than $1 million. The AP’s findings show that some influential visitors also donated to Clinton’s political operations.

The campaign argues that Clinton never took action as secretary of state because of donations to the charity.

Note that The AP’s findings don’t cover Clinton’s full tenure. The reasons are telling. It took three years of dogged haggling — and a lawsuit — by AP journalists, just to be able to review the kinds of appointment calendars and other records needed to conduct the analysis. Yet the report represents the most detailed look into questions about whether the Clintons’ charitable foundation allowed the rich and powerful extra access to the now Democratic presidential nominee.

The report comes as the saga of Clinton’s e-mail use at the State Department revealed other questions about access granted to big donors. To wit, a crown prince from Bahrain who had supported a $32 million scholarship through the Clinton Global Initiative won an audience with Clinton after going through a Clinton Foundation executive. His earlier attempts to go through official channels were met with frustration.

While the findings don’t suggest conduct from Clinton that would be disqualifying, The AP’s report is important work, given the universal perception that Hillary Clinton would move from the State Department into a presidential contest.

Clinton’s campaign lashed out at The AP, claiming its findings were a distorted portrayal. Clinton’s supporters will likely argue there was nothing illegal about the meetings, and that’s true enough. And others rightly note that the foundation has worked to make lives better for the disadvantaged around the world.

But those arguments miss the point. Americans should always question arrangements that allow the already powerful to gain extra advantage with their government.

The Clintons know they have a problem here. Bill Clinton earlier this week announced that if Hillary wins the presidency, he would step down from the foundation’s board. Further, the foundation would stop accepting support from corporate and foreign donors.

But as The AP notes, the moves cannot negate the fact that some 6,000 donors already have given north of $2 billion to the charity.

As an expert on nonprofits told The AP, that’s a lot of potential conflicts of interest. Should Clinton win the presidency, it will be important for her administration to quickly establish guidelines to avoid ethical problems and their appearance.

Blaming The AP for fulfilling journalism’s watchdog role is off base and worrisome. A sound democracy needs this kind of scrutiny to avoid the temptation for abuse of power

.