Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn hails from the Volunteer State of Tennessee, where she says her constituents are beginning to wonder whether they’re being held to the same set of standards as those in Washington, particularly Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Pointing to alleged rule violations by the Clinton Foundation and a probe by the FBI that is seeking to determine whether public corruption laws were violated when Hillary Clinton worked for the foundation at the same time she served as secretary of state, Blackburn has written a letter asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate further.
The letter has attracted significant interest from Blackburn’s colleagues, with just under 20 signatories agreeing to join the call in early April.
“The FTC has a history of investigating ‘sham’ charities for false and deceptive statements and should initiate a review of the foundation,” Blackburn wrote in her letter to the agency.
She also is a critic of changes by the Federal Communications Commission over the last year, through which the agency has sought to increase its control of the Internet. Blackburn reiterated her concern about what the agency’s “overreach” could mean in the future, calling the implications “frightening for the cause of free speech.”
Washington Examiner: What was the need you saw for the letter asking the FTC to investigate the Clinton Foundation?
Blackburn: In my opinion, It is an issue of public importance to my constituents. We have so many of the religious organizations and charitable foundations that are headquartered [in Tennessee], and I cannot tell you the number of times they have said to me, “I don’t get this. Tell me how they are able to do this.”
Because they look at what has transpired with the Clinton Foundation, and they feel Ms. Clinton’s statements about the foundation’s charitable work have been false or misleading.
They feel as if a different set of rules are in place for them as opposed to being in place for everybody else. For them, they would like to know how that has transpired.
When you look at the Clinton Foundation records that are available, there appears to be coordination between the State Department and the foundation. There was participation there in America’s foreign policy, and we have never had that type of situation.
I think it’s something that deserves a closer look.
Examiner: Are there any specific charges or allegations to which you want the FTC to pay particular attention?
Blackburn: What we would like to do is have the FTC look at their standing as a charitable foundation. There are other things that other entities are looking at, but when you go to CharityNavigator.com — that is one of the reasons constituents of mine say, “Look, if we were to conduct our busienss in this manner, we would be shut down. Our boards would not allow it.”
In Tennessee last year, we had four charities in the Knoxville area that were deemed sham charities and were shut down. My state is called the Volunteer State. When you have nonprofits that have a tremendous amount of participation in the community at large, my constituents look at me and say, “OK, this isn’t right. Is it favoritism, cronyism, is it a different set of rules, how is it they have the ability to go in and do this and we can’t?”
They’re just seeking clarity. If there’s been a change in the rules, then how did these changes come about? They want there to be one set of rules, and one way that nonprofits work, and for everyone to be held to the same standard.
Examiner: The FBI recently said in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that it “does not have any documents showing that the bureau communicated with Clinton or her aides.” Clinton has repeatedly suggested she has had contact with the FBI and has reason to believe she is not a target of their investigation into her server. What do you make of what is apparently a contradiction here?
Blackburn: I think it is unsettling. If the FBI says we have not contacted you, I think it’s pretty clear that the FBI has not contacted you. I don’t know why Ms. Clinton would think that they had been in touch with her when they had not been. So I think most of the public looks at that and says it’s a bit of a head scratcher.
Examiner: As a result of its ISP takeover, the Federal Communications Commission voted March 31 to regulate the privacy practices of Internet providers. Critics say that could give companies such as Facebook or Google even more of a monopoly over personal data. Do you see that as a possibility?
Blackburn: I think it is of concern. The FCC has no jurisdiction in privacy. They are overstepping their bounds. This is another form of cronyism. This is an activist chairman who wants to operate outside of his footprint, if you will.
He’s trying to get over in the FTC’s wheelhouse on this. It would be something that would favor the ability of companies that he favors like Google and Facebook.
I find it so curious that he wants to regulate privacy, but he wants to keep his order on privacy secret.
Examiner: Many have tied the Open Internet Order to an overall attack on what FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai calls the “culture of the First Amendment.” Pai points to college campuses; others point to examples like Twitter’s “Trust and Safety Council.” Do you see that same cultural attack on free expression?
Blackburn: I do. They begin with the end in mind, and they incrementally walk toward their end. We know that is how they operate. Bearing that in mind, and recognizing it, you know what they are doing is seeking ways to encroach on your privacy and your free speech, and then they want to tax and regulate so that they control priority and value to content.
Working with Google and Facebook, they’re able to get into that prioritization business. I find this FCC commission led by Chairman [Tom] Wheeler, and of course the two other Democrats, I find some of their overreach to be frightening for the cause of free speech in this nation.
Examiner: Do you see “soft censorship” from entities like tech giants and college campuses as more of a threat to free speech than “hard censorship” in the form of regulation?
Blackburn: I see all of it as a threat, but I see the hard censorship coming from the FCC as a greater threat. I think that when you start exercising censorship, then there is the problem. If the FCC exercises overreach, there are other entities that feel as if they can exercise overreach.
That is something that concerns me. I think that Ajit referred very adeptly to what he called the culture of the First Amendment, and that is something we need to be careful about, and protect the first First Amendment, and protect free speech.
You get over in the other area with the ISPs having a responsibility to block some of these known bad actors, some of these rogue financial networks and rogue websites, the ones used for human trafficking, sex trafficking, money trafficking. They need to be careful about that.
So I’m going to tilt to what Ajit and [FCC Commissioner] Michael O’Rielly have to say on this. I think we need to be careful about protecting the First Amendment.
Examiner: Do you think it’s time for Republicans to coalesce around their presidential front-runner?
Blackburn: I think we’ll go ahead and see the theories play out, and then work through coalescing whomever has the top votes. I think whomever the Republican electorate has elected as the nominee, that’s who we should all get around and make sure they can beat Hillary Clinton. My goal is whomever the nominee is, to give them full support so they are victorious in November.
Examiner: If there’s a brokered convention and party officials try to nominate someone who didn’t win the popular vote, how would voters react to that?
Blackburn: I think it would be less than helpful to winning in November. One of my constituents was in the office with his family over spring break. As we finished with the visit, he pulled me aside and said, “Marsha, I hope Republicans can stop the bickering and focus on the issues. We’re hurting out here, and we need to get down to business.”
People are worried about safety, the troops, jobs, and we hear this bickering. He said that he hopes the Republican Party gets its act together, and that they focus on how we get the country back on track. I thought it was well said, and sums up where my constituents are.
Let’s determine who the winner is, focus on issues and focus on beating Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, or whomever the Democrats end up with as their nominee.
