Democratic criticism of Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education, holds a dark lesson for us all: Sometimes it’s just not worth it to tell the truth. In a letter released Thursday, six members of Senate’s Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee called into question DeVos’s involvement in a “complicated web of political and not-for-profit organizations”—and they prominently quoted her decades-old admission to “buying influence” with donations.
In 1997 DeVos wrote a frankly-worded defense of her family’s soft money political donations. In an opinion column in Roll Call, she stated the obvious: that the rich and powerful DeVos clan donates to Republicans fully expecting a “return on our investment,” and declared she would “stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence.” Because of course they were—and, really, what’s the big deal?
Twenty years later, this candor has come back to haunt her, specifically her confirmation process for appointment to Trump’s cabinet. The HELP Committee has scheduled a hearing on her confirmation, among others also under scrutiny, for next week.
And Thursday’s letter requests a comprehensive run-down of DeVos’s involvements, particularly with school choice advocacy organizations she chaired until last year. The senators cast doubt on her ability to serve as an impartial Education secretary given her ties to these politically-active nonprofits. Their requests include an “explanation of [DeVos’s] role” in two school choice advocacy groups, disclosure of these groups’ donors, and a list of their expenditures and activities. Also: “An explanation of any requests or requirements made in exchange for those donations, including specific issues, legislation, or regulations to be addressed.”
If the implication of pay-for-play and the letter’s otherwise foreboding rhetoric smacks familiar, it could be because Senator Bernie Sanders expressed similar concerns mere months ago—while campaigning against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. What is the Clinton Foundation after all if not a “complicated web”?
A spokesman for DeVos, Ed Patru, issued a statement in response to the letter that highlighted this hypocrisy. “None of these signatories were losing sleep over the influence of money in politics prior to Election Day, but today it’s keeping them up at night,” Patru said.
“The letter helps shed some light on why the country voted for change.”
All six signers—Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, onetime veep-hopeful Al Franken, even Sanders and Elizabeth Warren—managed to overlook unraveling Clintonian pay-for-play and support Secretary Clinton’s bid for the presidency, some as prominent surrogates.
Each of the six has also received donations of their own from the nation’s largest teacher’s union, the National Education Association. And, naturally, the NEA expects its own “return on investment,” which Democrats deliver by leveling harsh scrutiny at DeVos.
