It was reported in today’s Washington Post that over the last six years former-President Bill Clinton has racked up $40 million in honorariums for speeches from groups seeking motivation to slumlords a/k/a the National Association of Landlords.
Those yick-yacked to by Clinton, the Post reports, have also been a very generous source of aid to his wife’s political aspirations, the Wall Street investment firm of Goldman-Sachs paid the former-president $650,000 for a yick and forked over another $270,000 to Hillary’s campaign coffers. Citigroup ponied- up $250,000 for a speech and $320,000 in Hillary bucks. The group has also pledged $5.5 million to Clinton’s Global Initiative. The list goes on.
Washington Post
We know when the Clinton’s left the Oval they were as poor as church mice with $12 million in legal fees over their heads. But that does not bar us from asking the question: Should a president be allowed to receive honoraria derived from knowledge as a result of his public service?
The President of the United States before and after his/her term expires is privy to information that could lead to government contracts, monetary, domestic or foreign policy initiatives. Such information may benefit a private sector entity privy to such knowledge. Should the former-president be permitted to share this information on the one hand, on the other should companies benefit from what constitutes "insider-knowledge?"
We have come to a place where the ethical sticky-widget (a wicket is too low tech)hits the Clintons in the face again.
The questions that surround these speeches and Clinton’s foundation work glares with red flags: Do these speaking fees cover-up lobbying on behalf of the client? Does he lobby his wife? Does she report it? Is President Clinton lobbying on behalf of his 501(c) 3? Does he lobby others on a federal, state or local level? Does he file the necessary disclosure statements detailing on whose behalf he performs governmental relations activities and what part of his honorarium constitutes payment for these services?
This honorarium yick-yack raises even larger ethical questions if the former-president persists in these activities once his wife occupies the "big chair" at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The Clintons’ cured possible ethical improprieties by dissolving a blind trust and converting its assets into cash last year.
On her Senate disclosure form Mrs. Clinton lists assets that are "wholly-owned" by her husband. However, wouldn’t these sole holdings compose part of community property in a divorce or be inheritable upon the former-president’s death? I don’t practice law anymore so I don’t have answers.
What I do know is that President Clinton can’t engage in the practice of law anymore, or at least until his suspension ends, yet he is free to trade on information that was imparted or may be imparted if his wife is elected president. My cynical side smells something foul.
By the way, let’s talk about slumlords for a minute. It seems that Barack Obama did about five billable hours of work for indicted racketeer Tony Rezko and Mrs. Clinton claimed in the Whitewater investigation that she billed sixty hours of work to McDougal over an 18-month period.
Would Hillary like Ken Starr to take his old job back? Have we just hit upon "Yick-Yack gate."
blind trust