The final Morning Jolt of the week features a preview of next week’s CPAC, the Thursday Afternoon of the Long Knives at MSNBC, and then this frustrating development for the Clintons…
What the Foreign Donations Tell Us About the Clintons’ Self-Perception
The New York Times editorial board tells the Clintons something they don’t want to hear:
Since its inception in 2001, [The Clinton Foundation] has raised nearly $2 billion in cash and pledges with millions more flowing in from an impressive array of donors, including foreign governments, financial chieftains and domestic donors, many of the latter political heavyweights.
All of which underlines the need for Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her all but certified role as a Democratic presidential candidate, to reinstate the foundation’s ban against foreign contributors, who might have matters of concern to bring before a future Clinton administration. This was a restriction Mrs. Clinton worked out with the Obama administration to allay concerns of potential conflict of interest when she became secretary of state in 2009.
According to a report this week in The Wall Street Journal, the ban was dropped after Mrs. Clinton left the administration in 2013, leading to a resumption of donations from foreign governments and agencies to the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, which sponsors conferences of world leaders from government, industry and philanthropy. Donors have included the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Oman and a Canadian government agency reported to be involved in promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.
Ron Fournier, who many of us were arguing with earlier in the week, declares, “This is sleazy and stupid.”
This is sleazy because her foundation takes money from countries that fund terrorism. A Wikileaks cable quoted then-Secretary of State Clinton saying, “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” The United Arab Emirates also was implicated in the memo.
This is stupid because it plays into a decades-old knock on the Clintons: They’ll cut any corner for campaign cash. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton and his top aides used the White House as a tool to court and reward big donors. It was the second-biggest scandal of his presidency.
Yes, but let’s go one more step: at the heart of every corruption scandal in American politics is the perpetrator’s certainty that they can do this, and that they’re entitled to these sorts of arrangements, because they’re one of the good guys. I am sure former Oregon Governor Kitzhaber thought his fiancé’s consulting arrangements were no big deal because he was fighting for a clean environment, and she was just trying to help some green energy companies.
I am sure that former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell thought his friendship with the supplement company CEO was on the up-and-up, the gifts weren’t anything important enough to disclose, and that all of them were good people who wanted to make Virginia a better place to live. Former New Jersey Senator Bob Torricelli was furious that the public didn’t find his apology enough to resolve the scandal of him accepting lavish gifts from donors, and his resignation speech detailed all he had done for the state – suggesting he was the real victim here.
There are already serious claims that the Clinton Foundation is really a favor factory for the rich and powerful, spending millions on travel and luxuries like flying Natalie Portman and her dog first-class to an event. Hey, the organization helps people, right? Who can complain about an organization with such noble motives? Fly the dog first-class, it’s all about helping people!
Politicians and elected officials always see themselves as the protagonists in a personal heroic narrative, and always believe that all of their actions – no matter how self-serving they appear to others – are taken in the name of the greater good. Decisions like this one suggest that the Clintons are getting less self-aware with time.
Look, it’s not like there’s already an established narrative of the Clintons making ludicrous claims about their need for more money, right?
