A
AnAmericanCitizen
Guest
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...oct04,0,5355933.story?coll=la-home-commentary
From the Los Angeles Times
Who's giving money to Bill Clinton?
The former president should disclose his foundation's backers before his wife goes up
for election. By Matthew Yglesias
October 4, 2007
When Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton is asked on the campaign trail
what her husband would do in the unprecedented role of "first laddy," she suggests
that he'd serve as a kind of goodwill ambassador to the world.
The answer is decent, but the question is strange because he already has a demanding
job: He's the head of the William J. Clinton Foundation, which tries to make a
serious dent in such problems as climate change, HIV/AIDS and Third World poverty.
And he shows no signs of wanting to quit.
Typically, ex-presidents make money on the lecture circuit while finishing the
fundraising for their presidential libraries. In fact, they can start the fundraising
in office, without being subject to the usual campaign finance rules. President Bush,
for example, is busying himself raising half a billion dollars for his
post-presidency, with, no doubt, much of that coming from individuals interested in
influencing public policy. Not only can this money be collected in unlimited sums,
there's no disclosure of who is doing the giving.
To close this wildly inappropriate loophole, Hillary Clinton is sponsoring a bill
that would mandate disclosure of financial contributions made to sitting presidents'
presidential libraries. It's a good idea. Her husband, in turn, has done her one
better by promising that, should she become president and her bill be passed into
law, he would voluntarily comply with the law's disclosure rules. After all, donors
seeking to curry favor with the president could simply spread cash to the foundation
controlled by her spouse.
So far so good, except for one thing.
Disclosing who's contributing to Bill Clinton's foundation after his wife wins the
election would be about four years too late. The voters ought to have this
information before the election, when it could still make a difference. Indeed, we
really ought to find out who his donors are before the nomination is settled.
If the former president wants his gesture of transparency to be taken seriously, he
ought to disclose right away. After all, by sponsoring a law to mandate disclosure of
donations to presidential foundations and agreeing that Bill would voluntarily
comply, the Clintons have already conceded the key points of principle.
And it's impossible to view the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary Clinton campaign
as entirely separate enterprises. Bill is, naturally, one of Hillary's key surrogates
on the campaign trail. The Clinton Global Initiative's annual meeting last week in
New York City featured such key Hillary advisors as former Treasury Secretary
Lawrence Summers and retired Gen. Wesley Clark. Peter Daou, who helps the Clinton
campaign with online communications, used to have the same job at the Clinton
Foundation. And Ira Magaziner, once the point man on Hillary's healthcare plan, is
now the top staffer at the foundation.
There's nothing improper about any of this. One expects a married couple to know the
same people, and the Clinton campaign isn't shy about pointing out that it has the
most experienced team in the field precisely because of its ties to the former
Clinton administration. But because it's presumed that big-dollar donors to the
Clinton Foundation are gaining access to and some measure of influence with the
foundation's top dog, is it such a stretch to think that might extend to his White
House-seeking wife as well?
Because the Clinton Foundation doesn't disclose its backers, there's no way to tell
exactly what's at stake. The Global Initiative's annual meeting, however, displayed a
list of sponsors that included purely charitable outfits such as the Rockefeller
Foundation, but also Pfizer, a major player in the heavily regulated pharmaceutical
industry and a firm whose bottom line could be greatly influenced by a future Clinton
administration's policies.
Microsoft, another sponsor, was actually targeted for breakup by Clinton's Justice
Department, only to see the suit dropped when the Bush administration came to power.
What's more, presidential foundations -- unlike political campaigns -- can accept
contributions from foreign citizens and even foreign governments. So, although
Hillary Clinton is barred from cashing a $100 check from David Beckham, on the theory
that he might be attempting to undermine U.S. sovereignty (or force decent Americans
to play soccer), Bill is free to have his annual meeting co-sponsored by the country
of Oman, whose interests surely don't overlap 100% with those of the U.S.
Most likely, those companies (and one sultanate) that wanted their names on a poster
outside the Global Initiative meeting rooms weren't after anything more insidious
than a little good publicity. The donors to worry about are the ones who aren't eager
to brag about their generosity.
To know whether such worries are warranted, we need to know who the donors are, and
we need to know now -- before it's too late.
Matthew Yglesias is an associate editor of the Atlantic Monthly.
matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com
From the Los Angeles Times
Who's giving money to Bill Clinton?
The former president should disclose his foundation's backers before his wife goes up
for election. By Matthew Yglesias
October 4, 2007
When Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton is asked on the campaign trail
what her husband would do in the unprecedented role of "first laddy," she suggests
that he'd serve as a kind of goodwill ambassador to the world.
The answer is decent, but the question is strange because he already has a demanding
job: He's the head of the William J. Clinton Foundation, which tries to make a
serious dent in such problems as climate change, HIV/AIDS and Third World poverty.
And he shows no signs of wanting to quit.
Typically, ex-presidents make money on the lecture circuit while finishing the
fundraising for their presidential libraries. In fact, they can start the fundraising
in office, without being subject to the usual campaign finance rules. President Bush,
for example, is busying himself raising half a billion dollars for his
post-presidency, with, no doubt, much of that coming from individuals interested in
influencing public policy. Not only can this money be collected in unlimited sums,
there's no disclosure of who is doing the giving.
To close this wildly inappropriate loophole, Hillary Clinton is sponsoring a bill
that would mandate disclosure of financial contributions made to sitting presidents'
presidential libraries. It's a good idea. Her husband, in turn, has done her one
better by promising that, should she become president and her bill be passed into
law, he would voluntarily comply with the law's disclosure rules. After all, donors
seeking to curry favor with the president could simply spread cash to the foundation
controlled by her spouse.
So far so good, except for one thing.
Disclosing who's contributing to Bill Clinton's foundation after his wife wins the
election would be about four years too late. The voters ought to have this
information before the election, when it could still make a difference. Indeed, we
really ought to find out who his donors are before the nomination is settled.
If the former president wants his gesture of transparency to be taken seriously, he
ought to disclose right away. After all, by sponsoring a law to mandate disclosure of
donations to presidential foundations and agreeing that Bill would voluntarily
comply, the Clintons have already conceded the key points of principle.
And it's impossible to view the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary Clinton campaign
as entirely separate enterprises. Bill is, naturally, one of Hillary's key surrogates
on the campaign trail. The Clinton Global Initiative's annual meeting last week in
New York City featured such key Hillary advisors as former Treasury Secretary
Lawrence Summers and retired Gen. Wesley Clark. Peter Daou, who helps the Clinton
campaign with online communications, used to have the same job at the Clinton
Foundation. And Ira Magaziner, once the point man on Hillary's healthcare plan, is
now the top staffer at the foundation.
There's nothing improper about any of this. One expects a married couple to know the
same people, and the Clinton campaign isn't shy about pointing out that it has the
most experienced team in the field precisely because of its ties to the former
Clinton administration. But because it's presumed that big-dollar donors to the
Clinton Foundation are gaining access to and some measure of influence with the
foundation's top dog, is it such a stretch to think that might extend to his White
House-seeking wife as well?
Because the Clinton Foundation doesn't disclose its backers, there's no way to tell
exactly what's at stake. The Global Initiative's annual meeting, however, displayed a
list of sponsors that included purely charitable outfits such as the Rockefeller
Foundation, but also Pfizer, a major player in the heavily regulated pharmaceutical
industry and a firm whose bottom line could be greatly influenced by a future Clinton
administration's policies.
Microsoft, another sponsor, was actually targeted for breakup by Clinton's Justice
Department, only to see the suit dropped when the Bush administration came to power.
What's more, presidential foundations -- unlike political campaigns -- can accept
contributions from foreign citizens and even foreign governments. So, although
Hillary Clinton is barred from cashing a $100 check from David Beckham, on the theory
that he might be attempting to undermine U.S. sovereignty (or force decent Americans
to play soccer), Bill is free to have his annual meeting co-sponsored by the country
of Oman, whose interests surely don't overlap 100% with those of the U.S.
Most likely, those companies (and one sultanate) that wanted their names on a poster
outside the Global Initiative meeting rooms weren't after anything more insidious
than a little good publicity. The donors to worry about are the ones who aren't eager
to brag about their generosity.
To know whether such worries are warranted, we need to know who the donors are, and
we need to know now -- before it's too late.
Matthew Yglesias is an associate editor of the Atlantic Monthly.
matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com
