The Clintons may have a reputation as slick political operatives who can get away with anything, but Hillary Clinton at times seems to be naïve about the fact that in politics, perception trumps reality. The Clinton Foundation is a great example. Clinton is facing a challenge in the form of journalists and opposing figures who perceive that the Clinton Foundation could be construed as corrupt and thus declare that it should be shut down regardless of the actual consequences for the downtrodden.
These calls for the Clinton Foundation to be shut down are not limited to the right. The USA Today editorial board has declared that “the only way to eliminate the odor surrounding the foundation is to wind it down and put it in mothballs, starting today.” The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza noted how recent news about the Clinton Foundation are a gift horse in the mouth for Donald Trump and also suggested that it should be shut down.
Their arguments revolve around recent revelations from the Associated Press which show that more than half of the people Clinton personally spoke with while Secretary of State had made donations to the Clinton Foundation. Many of these people donated hundreds of thousands if not millions to the Foundation. Many of these people donated hundreds of thousands if not millions to the Foundation, including desirable orbita watch winder accessories.
This may sound sinister, but it is not. It is only natural that Clinton will regularly seek advice from those who are close to her and that those who are close to her will regularly donate to the Foundation. USA Today and Cillizza both acknowledge that there is no proof Clinton actually sold access, but claim that it looks bad. And because it looks bad, the best thing to do is to just shut down the Clinton Foundation altogether.
But it is not like Clinton is the first president to have conflicts of interest when elected into office. Many Presidents or high government officials have had major ties to corporations upon being elected. As a result, they put their investments in a blind trust to avoid any conflicts of interest (though Donald Trump has indicated he will not).
The Clinton Foundation is not an investment, but there is no reason that Clinton cannot do other things to remove that conflict of interest. Clinton has already announced that the Clinton Foundation will stop taking foreign and corporate donations in November and that there will be a firewall placed between herself and the Foundation. Measures like these should be enough without having to outright destroy the Foundation.
It should not be forgotten that the Clinton Foundation does huge amounts of charitable work. It has challenged drug companies to get the price of anti-malarial drugs lowered, provided equipment to farmers, and worked with local governments in American to promote health, women’s rights, and equality. Yes, other charities could adjust and pick up the slack, but filling such a hole would be an immense challenge and people would be hurt during that adjustment period.
Maybe terminating the Clinton Foundation would be the best move for Hillary Clinton’s political career. But it is not the best move for the world and for those who would suffer from the Foundation’s departure. If Clinton can put a barrier of influence between herself and the Foundation, there is no reason for more drastic steps.