Potential rivals of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign shrank from commenting Thursday on a much-discussed story about the billions of dollars being contributed to the Clinton family foundation — but government ethics watchdogs showed no such reluctance.
More than $2 billion has been contributed by wealthy individuals, political donors, corporations and foreign countries to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, including more than $262 million in 2013, the last year in which Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
The foundation creates a back-door influence path for people, corporations and countries with an interest in being viewed favorably by the Clintons if Hillary is elected president.
The Washington Post story Thursday followed a Washington Examiner analysis last July that found the State Department had signed off on 215 ethics reviews of speeches given around the world by the former president while his wife was the nation’s chief diplomat.
Based on copies of the reviews obtained by nonprofit watchdog Judicial Watch, the Examiner analysis concluded that “Bill Clinton earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy, raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements related to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.”
Spokesmen for Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on the Republican side and former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia on the Democratic side declined to comment on the Post story or its implications for the 2016 campaign. Spokesmen for other potential 2016 candidates did not respond to requests for comment.
But sorting the charitable from the political donations to the foundation may not be nearly as complicated as deciphering when Hillary Clinton can speak to the foundation bearing her family’s name, according to Cause of Action Executive Director Daniel Epstein.
“Whenever a 501(c)(3) entity, like the Clinton foundation, invites an individual to speak as a political candidate, the entity must provide an equal opportunity to all candidates seeking the office, must not indicate any support for the candidate and must not engage in political fundraising,” Epstein said.
Based on what he’s seen to date, Epstein said the foundation appears to be compliant with the law, but he pointed to concerns about whether donors to the foundation believe their tax-deductible contribution may also buy them some political influence with the Clintons.
There is also a concern that “the activities by Secretary Clinton on behalf of the foundation may benefit her campaign,” he said.
That is why “the foundation cannot invite her to events due to her candidacy for president, neither Secretary Clinton nor any representative of the organization can publicly mention her candidacy for president at Foundation-sponsored activities, and no campaign activity may occur at such events.”
Project on Government Oversight Investigator Michael Smallberg also pointed to the overlapping interests of the Clinton foundation and Hillary Clinton’s political prospects.
“We don’t see a huge problem with a former president soliciting donations for a legacy philanthropic project. The concern with the Clinton Foundation is that it’s also serving as a platform for a potential future president. Will Hillary Clinton be able to distance herself from the corporate interests and foreign powers that have bankrolled her family’s foundation and are seeking to influence U.S. policies,” he said.
Center for Responsive Politics Executive Director Sheila Krumholz said the multiplicity of interests contributing to the Clinton foundation poses special ethical and conflict of interest problems.
“This is a great example of a scenario that is rife for potential conflicts of interest — and naturally it’s especially worrisome when the interests that may curry favor (and ultimately influence politics and/or policy) are foreign, adding a layer of concern not just about the public interest but about national interests and even national security,” she said.
Krumholz cautioned that “giving to a politician’s public charity is just one way — time honored and abused by members of both parties — out of the many that donors can curry favor with politicians. And, frankly, giving to a presidential library, which many of these donors did for BIll Clinton, too, is probably an even more pointed attempt to curry favor, often with a sitting president.”
Presidential libraries have long been at the center of political influence peddling scandals. At the end of the Clinton presidency, for example, he issued a pardon to convicted tax evader Marc Rich after Rich’s wife contributed $450,000 to the Clinton library. Then-deputy attorney general Eric Holder recommended the pardon to Clinton.
“At least the Clinton foundation can boast of legitimate charitable and humanitarian works,” Krumholz said.
Noting that Judicial Watch has been in court for more than a year seeking official documents about the Clintons activities during Hillary Clinton’s secretaryship and that the foundation has been in existence for more than a decade, Chris Farrell wondered why the Post story wasn’t published much earlier.
“Today’s Washington Post coverage of the Clinton’s decades-long enterprise to monetize their ‘public service’ for their personal enrichment is very late and half-hearted. It seems only the direct involvement of foreign donors and the compromising impact on Hillary’s nascent presidential campaign has been enough to awaken the slumbering Post.”
Farrell is Judicial Watch’s director of research and investigations.
Mark Tapscott is executive editor of the Washington Examiner.
