The current breathless discussion in the media about contributors to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State is irrational to the point of insanity. It also demonstrates the hypocrisy of the media whose CEO’s regularly do similar but much worse things.
Beyond question, the Clinton Foundation is a true charity which donates significant sums of money to aid several kinds of charitable work, most significantly fighting AIDS in foreign countries. Likewise, there is no question but what the money donated by the Foundation is well used for those charitable purposes. So in essence the argument of the media, and it is only the media, since all public office holders, especially Republican office holders, have a very good reason for saying nothing about this matter, is that various corporations and individual in the United States gave money to the Foundation, which used the money only for charitable purposes and in no way to personally benefit the Clintons, and as a result of these contributions Hillary Clinton met with some of these CEO’s and individuals and in some cases spoke to foreign governments on their behalf. In essence the media claim is that Secretary Clinton was “bribed” to do things that she would not have done anyway by people who gave money to a charity which in no way helped her.
The mere stating of this proposition shows how silly it is, but let’s look at it anyway for the amusement that it provides. First, we should note that the Secretary of State is not a member of the Congress and so cannot introduce laws or vote on them. Second, the Secretary does not sign bills that have been passed into law; only the President can do that. Third, the Secretary of State cannot order the Federal government to do anything other than in the State Department. Only the President can that. Fourth, the State Department is not that big and doesn’t spend that much money or make regulations that have all that much effect on businesses. Nor can it force foreign governments to do what US businesses want. It can only politely ask for consideration. It’s much more worthwhile for companies and rich people to attempt to bribe or influence the Secretaries of most other departments. Fifth, the First Amendment guarantees to Americans the right to petition the Federal government, so there is no way to prevent people who think the US State Department can help them in some way from contacting the Secretary of State, whether they have donated to the Clinton Foundation or not. Finally, it is part of the job of the Secretary of State to help US citizens with foreign problems they may have. A frequent request is that the State Department help a company get a contract with a foreign country or a business in a foreign country. For decades the State Department has helped with these matters without any contributions being made to the Clinton Foundation.
Put another way, to accuse Secretary Clinton of accepting bribes, which is what the media is doing, or more politely of being unduly influenced, the media must show that she did things that she would not have done but for a contribution to the Foundation. Obviously, they can’t do this. Secretary Clinton did not do anything that any other Secretary of State hasn’t done or would have done under the same circumstances even without a contribution to the Foundation. The idea that she could be influenced to act against the interests of the United States because of a charitable contribution which did not personally benefit her is too silly to be discussed seriously.
Actually, when the matter is considered rationally, the media is saying that Secretary Clinton got a bunch of CEO’s and rich people to contribute to a charity which doesn’t help her in any way, but which does good things at home and abroad because they thought it would cause her to do what she would have done anyway, even though her department can’t give them money directly, has very limited ability to change regulations that affect them, can’t influence laws at home or abroad and can’t force foreign governments to do anything. Frankly, for helping to get some of the 1% to give money to the 99% at no cost to the federal government Secretary Clinton deserves a medal, not criticism.
This bring us to the hypocrisy of the media. The fact is that the CEO’s of every media company of any size in this country gives money in the form of “campaign contributions” to politicians which money directly benefits those politicians. Those CEO’s and the lobbyists employed by them or acting for industry lobbying groups paid for the CEO’s companies give those “campaign contributions” expecting the politicians taking them to introduce and vote for laws which benefit media companies and rich people like the CEO’s. They also expect to get relatively easy access to those politicians to lobby for things they want done. Further, they refuse to disclose to their shareholders to whom they or the lobbying associations they fund give campaign contributions or the amounts of those contributions. Nor do they disclose what they lobby the politicians who get the contributions for. It’s very important to them to hide what they are doing from the public and their shareholders. Even if one wishes to criticize Hillary Clinton’s actions with respect to the Foundation and her job as Secretary of State, that is clearly nothing compared to what the CEO’s of media companies do using their “campaign contributions” to members of Congress.
One might notice that the media strangely does not ask any Republican politician, other than Donald Trump, about Secretary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation nor does any Republican office holder say anything about the matter. This is clearly because these Republicans know very well that the second they mention contributions to the Clinton Foundation as a reason not to vote for Secretary Clinton, their Democratic opponents will point out that they do the same thing for campaign contributions that benefit them directly, while contributions to the Foundation do not benefit Hillary Clinton, except in feel-good manner, at all.