Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WaPo editorial: The Clinton Conflict

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 07:44 PM
Original message
WaPo editorial: The Clinton Conflict

The Clinton Conflict

The former president's fundraising invites trouble.
Sunday, December 21, 2008; Page B06

THERE IS no getting around the uniquely difficult issues posed by the dual roles of Hillary Rodham Clinton as future secretary of state and former president Bill Clinton as the head of a foundation that raises money from foreign governments. Mr. Clinton's foundation does valuable work around the world on issues such as HIV/AIDS, climate change and economic development. Foreign governments provide critical support; Australia, Ireland, Great Britain, Sweden, Canada, France, Denmark, Norway and the Dominican Republic, among others, support the foundation's HIV/AIDS initiative, while Australia contributes to the climate change program. But Mr. Clinton's good works also fall squarely within the future domain of Ms. Clinton, and his commitment to continue to raise money for these programs while his wife is in office presents inevitable opportunities for conflict of interest and other difficulties down the road. Ms. Clinton and the future Barack Obama administration would be better served if Mr. Clinton were to direct his prodigious energies elsewhere for the duration of her service.

The incoming administration secured the disclosure of past donors to the Clinton presidential library and foundation; this was an important and necessary step. Under the memorandum of understanding negotiated between the two camps, the names of future donors will also be released, albeit only on an annual basis, which seems a rather languorous schedule in this day and age. In addition, new donations from foreign governments will be scrutinized by government ethics officers. Countries that simply re-up existing pledges will be exempt from this review; only if a foreign country chooses to "increase materially its commitment" or a new country signs on will the foundation "share such countries and the circumstances of the anticipated contribution with the State Department designated agency ethics official for review."

But however worthy the cause or uncontroversial the foreign government, it strikes us that such fundraising by the former president presents an unavoidable conflict. What is the standard for the ethics official to apply? Doesn't spurning a proffered donation from a foreign government risk creating its own diplomatic problems? What happens when Secretary Clinton, visiting Country X to press for, say, a climate change agreement, is informed by the prime minister that he's just written her husband a $10 million check for that cause? What about gifts from foreign governments seeking trade concessions or approval to purchase military equipment? Even if Ms. Clinton is not influenced by gifts to her husband's charity, the appearance of a conflict is unavoidable. The better approach would be to allow existing commitments to go forward but to forswear any new ones.

Moreover, the memorandum of understanding does not appear to contemplate any prior review of contributions by foreign individuals or corporations, or by U.S. companies or individuals with overseas entanglements. So consider -- because it already happened -- the case of a wealthy investor who is seeking business opportunities in, say, Kazakhstan. He gives millions to the Clinton foundation, visits the country with the former president and obtains the sought-after contract. No one in the Obama administration will vet such a gift in advance; the public will learn of it only with the yearly disclosure. The new administration is buying itself a heap of potential trouble with this arrangement.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. This does a good job in outlining how there will almost certainly be at least
the appearance of conflict of interest. It may well be that the agreement will have to be tightened to avoid the problems outlined here.

This is not a criticism of either Clinton - the fact is that with Hillary Clinton we are facing complexities that haven't been addressed before - as she is the First First Lady to be a Senator, to run for President, to be considered for VP or now, to be the person nominated for Secretary of State.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It is complex. Another opinion:

Helping Bill = Influencing Hillary?

The Financial Express
Posted: 2008-12-20 02:16:53+05:30 IST
Updated: Dec 20, 2008 at 0216 hrs IST

The William J Clinton foundation finally released a long list of major donors as part of a deal with Barack Obama, which would ultimately pave the way for Hillary Clinton to be confirmed as Secretary of State. The chief concern of the Obama team was to prevent any charges of conflict of interest in the functioning of the country’s next top diplomat. However, it didn’t take long for charges to be leveled. Amusingly, a PTI news report quoted an anonymous Pakistani source expressing concern at the large number of Indians in the list, venting Pakistan’s paranoia about a distinct pro-India tilt in Hillary Clinton’s State department.

Admittedly, the list of Indian donors among the big donors is impressive and includes business people, politicians and media. A closer examination of the biggest donors reveals that most represent business and industry—-Amar Singh is the only prominent political figure. Other prominent donors are CII, Laxmi Mittal, Tulsi Tanti/Suzlon, Reliance, Ranbaxy, Vinod Gupta, you get the gist. Quite simply, more than anything else, this is a reflection of the success of Indian business and entrepreneurs. One caveat: this does not apply to politicians. And the fact that Pakistanis don’t figure in the big league is an indication of their lesser economic clout. But economic clout won’t necessarily turn foreign policy tables.Consider the fact that the Foundation received much larger amounts from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and other Gulf states than from India. But only someone naïve or foolish would think that this will tilt US foreign policy dramatically in favour of Arab countries and away from Israel.

Pakistan’s importance to the US is strategic, not economic. That can’t change and won’t under Hillary. More than paranoia, Pakistani opinion would do well look inwards and get down to some serious economics and business, and not just political rhetoric.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. I wonder if the Republicans are going to use this as ammunition during the confirmation.
They have their sights fixed on Holder, but I'm hard-pressed to believe they will just let this conflict-of-interest-o-rama slide. It just may be too tempting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Wishful thinking....
....on your part....

Maybe Ken Starr will intercede on your behalf..

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. hardly - Obama doesn't need any impediments
unless, of course, you are hoping for some
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Not wishful thinking
My concern is that though she will obviously be confirmed, it will be with the price of all these conflicts and any other negative dredged up being thrown out in public. Obama has clearly determined the cost to be less than the benefit or he wouldn't have nominated her.

To say that having concerns puts anyone in the "Ken Starr" category is bullying. Ken Starr clearly was out of line - but, the Clintons were and are not paragons of virtue.

I would expect that the hearings will be interesting and the Republicans will try to show things in the worst light. I think that Kerry and Lugar will both be forces that will keep the hearing as well run as the Rice nomination was - where Lugar allowed Democrats, especially Kerry, to grill Rice intensely for hours. This was reasonable and Kerry should be as willing to allow an open hearing as Lugar was. That is what oversight is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SwampG8r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. wll thank god this warren thing happened
or we would have to actually study this and see if its all on the up and up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moriah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. I never thought I would be happy to see another one of your Clinton posts, Prosense....
... but it is a refreshing break from the Rick Warren talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. She should just divorce the dickwad.
He has no career, she still does.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. ***IRONIC POST OF THE WEEK ALERT***
During Warren/PostProp8-o-rama, you feel the need to voice your opinion on someone else's marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. opinions on other people's marriages aint the problem
it is the idea that one's opinions on the merits of other people's marriages ought to be put into law that is the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Feb 14th 2025, 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC