It's a family affair
Following the press coverage of the purported Hillary Clinton-Clinton Foundation scandal, we can confidently say that there is no basis, whatsoever, for the hyperbolic allegations of a "pay-to-play" or tacit bribery scheme. Indeed, for what would amount to one of the most egregious and shocking scandals in the country's history, even the typical example of the Republican attack machine
is notably empty and small-bore.
Without getting lost in the weeds of this or that charge, I think the current charges fairly can be described as a cynical, "pre-packaged and waiting-on-the-shelf" attack meme. The fact is that, years ago, everyone understood that: 1. Bill Clinton would be raising obscene sums of money from (certain) sovereign governments and unrestricted foreign corporations and individuals, and 2. it was inevitable that some number of those foreign sovereigns, corporations and individuals would find themselves doing business in some manner with the State Department. What author Peter Schweitzer is now characterizing as an implausible "pattern of coincidences," is actually the expected state of affairs that everyone understood, and - without more - simply laying Bill Clinton's personal schedule over everything-the-State Department-considered doesn't demonstrate anything clever. Sure, if the author had evidence of a quid pro quo, that would be something. But he doesn't, and he admits that.
So . . . the Clintons have to put this Clinton Foundation on ice, pronto. Some version of a "blind trust," if you will.
Why? Because the basic test of government ethics is "corruption or the appearance of corruption." The current Clinton arrangement fails the appearance test. Yes, I don't see even a laughable argument of actual corruption, but any sober, non-partisan view of this Foundation model would be that it unacceptably presents an appearance of corruption. For example, I am loathe to credit Brit Hume with anything, but I saw him on Fox's Chris Wallace Sunday show, and he is (regrettably) right:
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the smoking gun requirement would be what you'd be looking for if you're trying to prove a bribe. An outright bribe. But if the standard is even the appearance of a conflict of interest, he's got all of that. I mean, everything that Richard Lugar described in that sound bite that you showed earlier, has now come to pass. . . . Now, can you prove that these were bribes? No. But can anybody reasonably infer that these people were trying to buy influence? Of course. And the Clintons seem oblivious to that possibility or knowing of it and figuring they can get away with it. And then, of course, you have the instances in which the reporting that was supposed to occur to make all this transparent did not. So, you add it all up, it's pretty ugly.
Maybe this is hindsight, or arguably the prior arrangement worked at the level of Secretary of State. Whatever. But Hillary Clinton is running for President and there is no mature argument that one family could hold both the White House and this sprawling, multi-billion dollar, global network of unregulated money. The same thing goes, I hope without saying, for Bill Clinton's speaking fee tour. (Remember that the most excreable part of
Citizens United was
Justice Kennedy's blithe assertion that unlimited corporate money "do[es] not lead to,
or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption.” )
But this isn't a remotely complicated point. It is precisely why Hillary immediately resigned from the Clinton Foundation when she announced her candidacy. It is why Michael Bloomberg left Bloomberg L.P. to become mayor of New York. It is as obvious as why Chris Christie's wife resigned from her investment banking firm in advance of his imminent announcement. Don't fool yourselves: this ain't ethics-rocket science. And I don't want to spend 4 to 8 years defending Clinton entitlements rather than progressive ideals.
So, here are some obvious and (yes) necessary things to do:
1. Bill, Hillary and Chelsea have to resign all board and officer positions with the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation (and any related entities) for the duration of Hillary's campaign and presidency. Figure out some version of a "blind trust," etc. To be clear: this means they recuse themselves from all aspects of the Foundation, including fundraising or some bull-shit effort to evade calling it a fundraising activity. Donate your services to different charities.
2. Go out and find an independent CEO from the wide world of philanthropic organizations. Don't stick some crony there as a place holder.
3. Because all Foundation donations must, and should, be disclosed (and thus known by the Clintons), insist on a full ban on all foreign contributions, including sovereigns, corporations and individuals (as the Obama administration originally asked).
Will this cramp the effectiveness of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation? Probably. Too bad. Grow up. This isn't about capitulating to your enemies, it is about doing the right thing.