When we think of corruption in politics, money and sex immediately come to mind. Indeed, most corruption can be explained in terms of these two motives. In particular, when we think of the Clintons, money and sex certainly have been prominent elements in the various scandals surrounding them.
The questions that have recently surfaced concerning the Clintons are primarily that of money, whether Hillary, as Secretary of State, used her position to make decisions favorable to those from whom the Clintons have benefitted financially. Defenders of the Clintons have pointed to the fact that they do not profit personally from any money that goes into their foundations, and to the fact that the Clinton Global Initiative has done a lot of good. Critics have argued that Bill Clinton has profited personally by giving speeches, and that the foundations have been used to pay for some of the Clinton’s expenses.
As difficult as it may be to determine whether these monetary considerations amount to corruption, the investigation will be facilitated by the fact that money can be counted and that it has a source. We may not always be able to determine the amount of money and its source, but they do exist as something investigators may hope to uncover. In a similar way, sex is also a tangible factor of scandals, for women can be counted, and, as in the case of John Edwards, so can their babies.
The motives of money and sex seem more appropriate for youth than old age. If a young man is filled with lust, devoting much of his time to the pursuit of women with hopes of possessing them, we see this as a sign of his health and vitality. If an old man exhibits the same strong passions and ardent desires for sexual conquest, however, we shrink from the sight with aversion, regarding his behavior as lecherous. Likewise, if a young man is out to make a lot of money and become rich, we approve of his ambition. But when an old man who has enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life is still obsessed with making lots of money, we think of him as a greedy miser. The same may be said of women, of course, with allowances made for innate differences.
So while people continue to want sex and money as they age, we expect them to settle in, to accept the waning of sexual desire and to become less concerned with money beyond what is needed to live in reasonable comfort. And in place of sex and money as their principal motives, we expect them to become more concerned with doing good, to volunteer and give back to society. At the very least, we expect them to babysit.
And thus it is that the Clintons would like us to think of them in this light, that the money raised for the Clinton Global Initiative is for the benefit of mankind. And I have no doubt but that they see themselves in this way too. But we all act from mixed motives, and the Clintons are no exception. If all the Clintons wanted to do was help mankind, they could raise money for organizations that already exist. But raising money for an already existing organization would not give them control over that money. And control of money is power, even if you cannot spend it on yourself.
Imagine being given billions of dollars and told that you could not spend it on yourself, but you could give it to anyone you wanted to. You would immediately become a very important person. Everyone would want to be your friend. Everywhere you went, you would receive the red-carpet treatment. Television cameras would follow you around, and the nightly news would regularly report on your largesse. To a certain extent, the power to dole out billions would give you the opportunity to have some of that money find its way into your own pocket, and there would be no shortage of women offering their charms. But even forgetting about that, the power and fame that would come with being in control of so much money would be rewarding in itself. And unlike money and sex, which are tangible and can be counted, power and fame are sensed more than seen, felt more than measured.
Much government spending is based on this. Members of Congress cannot directly pocket tax revenue, but they control it and can give it to whom they please. And if it pleases them to subsidize a business or to dole it out to a foreign country, they may do so with the knowledge that the money will be gratefully received. As a result, they are lavished with much praise and attention by the representatives of those industries or by the dignitaries of those countries. Again, while this may lead to generous campaign contributions and perhaps a little personal remuneration when legislators believe they can get away with it, not to mention access to women provided by lobbyists and dignitaries, being a big shot is rewarding for its own sake, quite apart from any money or sex that may accrue from it.
It may be that Hillary never made a decision as Secretary of State that was influenced by considerations of money, whether it be the money Bill received for giving a speech or money going to the Clinton Global Initiative. But if it turns out that she was influenced by contributions to the CGI, the argument that she did not benefit personally depends on a narrow understanding of the term “benefit,” concentrating as it does on the mere possession of money, while overlooking the power that comes from controlling such money, and overlooking the fame that comes from heading an organization known for its eleemosynary accomplishments. The Clintons already have plenty of fame, of course, but much of it is unseemly and even shameful. They would like to put a little shine on their tarnished image, and the CGI is a means to that end.
Where the quid pro quo is not money, but only power and fame, proving such in a court of law would be difficult indeed. However, if we decide that Hillary was corrupted by the latter rather than the former, we need not prove anything, for we neither have to impeach nor convict, but only vote. It is like the difference between getting a divorce and simply breaking off an engagement. We are expected have good reasons for the former; for the latter, we only need cold feet.