Hillary Clinton at times rails against big money’s corrupting role in politics. Hacked and leaked emails — along with her donor record — show that this expressed concern is a farce.
In one email chain, top Clinton campaign officials discussed what to do about the platoon of foreign agents and lobbyists acting as campaign bundlers.
Clinton bundlers Jimmy Ryan and Steve Elmendorf lobbied for Colombia; Clinton bundler Tony Podesta, at the firm he cofounded with his brother John Podesta, was a foreign agent for Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Egypt; Clinton bundler Wyeth Weidman was a Libyan agent. Dozens of other Clinton bundlers were foreign agents, not to mention all the regular-old K Street lobbyists hustling cash for Hillary.
So maybe the campaign should place a restriction on foreign agents acting as key fundraisers for Hillary’s presidential campaign? Fundraising chief Dennis Chang asked others at the campaign in 2015 to decide “whether we are allowing those lobbying on behalf of foreign governments to raise $ for the campaign.”
“This is really a straight up political call,” Hillary confidant and general counsel Marc Elias wrote. “One middle option is to take case by case. If, for example, they are FARA registered for Canada, we may not case. If for N. Korea we would.”
Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson wanted to put the whole thing in perspective. “Is there anyway to ballpark what percent of our donor base this would apply to (aka how much money we’re throwing away) Cost benefits are easier to analyze with the costs. :)”
Robbie Mook, in the end rolled out his thinking:
“Marc made a convincing case to me this am that these sorts of restrictions don’t really get you anything…that Obama actually got judged MORE harshly as a result. He convinced me. So…in a complete U-turn, I’m ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks. Are you guys ok with that?
This question elicited the now-famous reply from Clinton confidante and Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri: “Take the money!!”
What’s striking is what they never consider: Could it compromise a potential Clinton White House if foreign agents are playing a large role in bankrolling the campaign?
Will the foreign agents or their foreign clients feel they’re owed something?
Would the campaign aides dealing with these bundlers or donors or foreign clients feel pressured to provide a favor?
Would administration officials be more responsive to these lobbyists or their foreign clients than to other parties?
But no. It’s “a straight up political call,” for the Clinton campaign. The only reason to reject lobbyist bundlers, campaign manager Mook makes clear, is the good PR that might come from it. For Obama, the only result of his (frankly hole-ridden) restrictions on lobbyist donors and bundlers was how he “was judged” — nothing about protecting his administration from undue influence.
If you believe, as Hillary Clinton implies when she calls for campaign finance reform, that donations corrupt, then what is more corrupting than lobbyists acting as fundraisers?
Were I moderating tonight’s debate, I would point to this email chain and ask, “Secretary Clinton, which is it: Do you not really believe that lobbyist money corrupts? Or are you just fine with being corrupted?”
Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner’s senior political columnist, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
