A perfect fit

Array

266 Shares

If you’re a U.S. Secretary of State who happens to help run a massive philanthropy on the side — a philanthropy whose success owes much to its association with a former U.S. president, who also happens to be your husband — what kind of influence does a large donation to your philanthropy really buy? Simple good vibes borne of untarnished altruism, or something more?

To compound the question, what if some of your biggest philanthropic donors are foreign governments? Not foreign individuals or corporations, mind you — those kinds of donations rightly might be questioned on their own merits — but foreign governments themselves? Could that possibly pose a conflict of (national) interest for the Secretary of State?

Credit The Washington Post this time around for begging the question. The Post revealed this week that the Clinton Foundation had received “millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state,” even though only one of those donations, amazingly, amounted to a violation of ethics under the Obama administration’s predetermined standards.

The Clinton Foundation was renamed after Hillary left the Obama Administration in 2013 and formally joined the foundation’s leadership. The rename lengthened the foundation’s title from the “William J. Clinton Foundation” to the “Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.”

Here’s the story’s golden paragraph:

The [Obama ethics] agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

Could this be part of the reason why John Kerry’s career with the State Department may be even more abysmal than Clinton’s?

Well, let’s see which countries gave the Clinton Foundation money while Hillary was heading up the State Department: Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Algeria, Norway, Australia and the Dominican Republic. Not all of those immediately call to mind an obvious conflict (not that they need to, on principle), but some do.

Qatar was an especially active spender during Clinton’s tenure, serving up “more than $5.3 million on registered lobbyists,” according to The Post’s sources.

“The country’s lobbyists were reported monitoring anti-terrorism activities and efforts to combat violence in Sudan’s Darfur region,” the story adds. “Qatar has also come under criticism from some U.S. allies in the region that have accused it of supporting Hamas and other militant groups. Qatar has denied the allegations.”

Qatar doesn’t deny, though, that it’s keeping a really, really close eye on those five Guantanamo prisoners the Obama administration traded for Bowe Bergdahl last year… except for those times when it isn’t.

“Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments,” the Post intrepidly declares, referencing Hillary’s presumed ascendance to the Democratic presidential frontrunner’s spot in 2016.

Well, maybe a nonprofit organization. With Jeb Bush mulling a run at the GOP presidential nomination, there has to be at least one bombshell story in the offing that alleges some kind of shady corporatist connection involving America’s other present-day political dynasty.

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.