Major U.S. companies that lobbied the State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure were much more likely to donate to the Clinton Foundation than corporations that were not attempting to influence the agency.
A number of major Clinton Foundation donors have defended their involvement by saying they gave to the controversial charity out of a sincere desire to do good. Most have dismissed suggestions that they did so to build political clout with the secretary of state and potential future president.
But executives at many firms that were foundation donors wrote contemporaneous checks to Clinton’s campaign and to lobbyists focused on the State Department, raising questions about whether the foundation could have served as another channel by which interested companies and individuals attempted to gain favor with the Clintons.
A Washington Examiner analysis of Fortune 100 companies discovered donations to the Clinton Foundation were heavily concentrated among firms that also spent money swaying the State Department while Clinton ran the agency.
While exactly half of the corporations appeared to have lobbied the State Department between 2009 and 2012, according to lobbying disclosures from the Center for Responsive Politics, foundation records show 55 of the firms donated to the charity.
Roughly 65 percent of foundation donors among the Fortune 100 also spent money on lobbying the State Department. By contrast, just 31 percent of companies that declined to give to the Clinton Foundation from the same group also lobbied the agency.
What’s more, many corporations that gave to the charity also funneled resources into other State Department projects as lobbyists worked to further their interests at the agency.
Of the 55 firms that donated to the foundation, 36 paid to lobby the State Department during at least one year of Clinton’s term.
Just 14 of the 45 companies that did not give to the charity lobbied the agency during that same time.
The pattern suggests corporations may have approached the Clinton Foundation as another conduit for influence over Clinton’s State Department, regardless of whether the secretary’s handling of their interests reflected their generosity.
Walmart donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton sat on the company’s board from 1986 to 1992.
Walmart also took on other philanthropic projects through the State Department.
In 2012, the company pledged $12 million to a fund Clinton created for women in developing countries.
Clinton launched her “Secretary’s International Fund for Women and Girls” in 2010, and it quickly became a magnet for companies that were simultaneously lobbying the State Department to further their commercial interests.
ExxonMobil and Goldman Sachs were among the other companies that poured money into Clinton’s fund.
All three firms lobbied the State Department under Clinton.
“We’ve paid [Clinton Global Initiative] membership dues every year since 2008,” said Randy Hargrove, spokesman for Walmart. “Our engagement with the State Department largely coincided with the launch of Walmart’s Women’s Economic Empowerment initiative, which is still underway as a signature, priority program.”
Hargrove added that “it’s not uncommon” for Walmart “to have discussions with parts of the State Department related to trade and other issues.”
But he noted those contacts predated Clinton’s arrival at the agency and that they have continued into this year.
Richard Keil, spokesman for ExxonMobil, said his company’s “long history” of giving to charities that reflect ExxonMobil’s philanthropic interests “is the sole explanation for our support of the Clinton Global Initiative and other Clinton-related charities.”
“During Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, we neither sought nor received any special treatment or consideration on any policy initiative,” Keil said.
Andrew Williams, spokesman for Goldman Sachs, said “any linkage” between a speech the firm paid Bill Clinton to give in 2011 and the outcome of issues involving the State Department that were listed on its lobbying disclosure form for that year is “preposterous.”
“We did not lobby the State Department on budget issues, nor did we ask anyone else to,” Williams said. He told the International Business Times the same thing in April in response to questions about the former president’s speech.
The State Department cleared Bill Clinton’s speaking engagement with the financial firm of any potential conflict of interest in February 2011, internal documents show.
Lobbying disclosure forms from 2011 indicate Goldman Sachs made an effort to “monitor deficit reduction issues,” which included the Budget Control Act.
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and spent a portion of its $23.1 million in lobbying expenses from 2009 alone on issues at the State Department.
Pfizer was also a top sponsor of the U.S. pavilion at the 2010 World’s Fair in Shanghai. The expo was an early Clinton priority for political reasons, and the former secretary of state tapped her vast donor network to foot the entire $60 million bill during her first year in office.
Chevron, another major sponsor of the Shanghai pavilion, spent $20.8 million on lobbying in 2009 alone. The State Department was among the recipients of those lobbying efforts.
Chevron also donated between $500,000 and $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to donor records.
The oil conglomerate had a variety of interests before the State Department at the time, including a potentially devastating legal case in Ecuador and its reported push to secure fracking concessions around the globe.
“There is no connection between our contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative and Chevron’s engagements with the U.S. State Department on appropriate business matters,” said Morgan Crinklaw, a spokesperson for Chevron.
“The Clinton Global Initiative was one of the many partnerships and programs that the company has had or maintains to advance our aim to build communities by investing in health, education and economic development in the areas where we do business,” Crinklaw told the Examiner.
Crinklaw noted that while the company has given $725,000 to the Clinton Foundation over a nine-year period, it spent $240 million on all of its “global social investments” in 2014 alone.
Chevron did indeed obtain a number of such lucrative concessions with the help of Clinton’s well-connected staff.
Boeing reportedly wrote a check for $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation just after the State Department intervened in a multi-billion dollar deal between the Russian government and the aerospace company.
While Boeing lobbied the agency during that time, it had given a total of between $1 million and $5 million to the foundation.
Boeing was also a major sponsor of the World’s Fair pavilion.
“Boeing’s contributions to the Clinton Foundation were primarily for school rebuilding programs in Haiti following the devastating earthquake in that country,” said Boeing spokesman Tim Neale.
Neale noted some of the company’s contributions went through the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, a charitable effort that he said “transcended politics and recognized the work that needed to be done.”
“Our donation for rebuilding schools in Haiti was made after Secretary Clinton advocated for the purchase of Boeing airplanes while visiting Russia, not before,” Neale told the Examiner, referring to a 2009 trip to Moscow during which Clinton herself joked she was making a “shameless pitch” to the Russian government on behalf of the company.
Procter & Gamble, Honeywell and Intel were among the expo’s additional sponsors that had both donated to the Clinton Foundation and lobbied the State Department.
Rob Ferris, spokesman for Honeywell, downplayed his company’s support of the Clinton Foundation.
“Honeywell has given minimal amounts to the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative,” Ferris said. Donor records indicate Honeywell has given between $25,000 and $50,000 to the charity.
“Our contributions have aligned with our longstanding philanthropic commitments to housing and shelter, humanitarian relief, or habitat and conservation,” Ferris added.
Still, not every company that gave to the foundation engaged in a lobbying campaign at Clinton’s State Department.
A handful of the Fortune 100 corporations were missing lobbying disclosures from one or more years of Clinton’s tenure, suggesting more may have lobbied the agency during that time.
The Clinton Foundation did not return a request for comment.
