Clinton Foundation - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Xazy · 04-03-2008, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Clinton Foundation donors remain shrouded in secrecy

Thu Apr 3, 12:22 AM ET

Since he left the White House in 2001, Bill Clinton has led quite the life. He has jetted around the globe for both humanitarian causes and personal enrichment. He has befriended foreign leaders, partnered with billionaires and built a $165 million presidential library in Little Rock.

Under normal circumstances, this might elicit only a modest reaction. But with his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, running for president, his circumstances are hardly normal. The people he deals with for both business and charity look at him not only as a former president, but also as a potential entree into the next administration.

Donors have pledged more than $500 million for construction of the library and for the Clinton Foundation, which administers the library as well as his global anti-AIDS and sustainable development campaigns.

That is an enormous amount for someone to be raising from friends, business partners, foreign governments and interested parties who are either barred from making campaign contributions or limited to the $2,300 maximum. Because of the former president's unusual position and the sheer size of this conduit into a potential presidential administration, the complete list of donors should be made public.

Some donors volunteered their names at the time of their gifts or when asked by reporters. What little is known about the others suggests that a good number are as interested in influencing public policy, or benefiting from the Clintons' worldwide ties, as they are in supporting presidential scholarship or economic development.

The Saudi royal family gave $10 million, according to The Washington Post, and numerous foreign governments have given $1 million. The largest contributors appear to include Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helü, Canadian mining entrepreneur Frank Giustra and the Lundin Group, a Canadian oil and gas company. Each has publicly pledged $100 million for development projects.

These gifts raise a number of questions, particularly in the case of Giustra, who in 2005 flew with Clinton to Kazakhstan, where his connections to the former president impressed officials enough to win him a lucrative uranium mining contract. They also raise the question of what favors might be sought by other donors who don't want to be identified.

Clinton argues that the confidentiality he promised his donors should take precedence over calls for transparency, and that he should not be judged by a different standard from other former presidents who have been allowed to keep their library donors secret.

Some philanthropic organizations go even further. Paulette Maehara, president of the Association of Fundraising Professionals, says that "if donors cannot trust charities to respect their wishes, then philanthropy simply cannot happen."

These arguments would be valid in most contexts. But given Clinton's unusual circumstances, gifts to his foundation could rightly be seen as a back door into the good graces of someone who could be a key adviser to the next president. The stakes are simply too high not to have principles of open government take precedence over common fundraising practices.

This is actually quite interesting to me. Personally I think they should have to fully disclose the list of donors, and the sums of money given to the clintons (well to Bill for his foundation) by certain individuals may make him impartial, in his advice to Hilary if she would get elected. Even now in her Senate position any advice from her husband is now bias. Personally this to me would now affect any election that Hilary would be a part of.

dc_dux · 04-03-2008, 06:14 AM

Ironically, it is a Bush Executive Order that gutted the Presidential Records Act that is tangentially giving the Clinton's the cover they need to withhold Clinton Foundation (and Clinton Library) documents from the public.

Its also Senate Republicans blocking legislation.The Dems tried to address the specific issue of disclosure of contributers to presidential libraries in a bill last year.

The Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007 passed the House last year by a vote of 390-34. Republicans have kept it stalled in committee in the Senate for a year now.

Senate Republicans also killed the President Records Act Amendments of 2007 (passed in the House by a vote of 333-93) which would have restored the original intent of the 1978 act that Bushg gutted unilaterally by Executive Order.

Unless the Bush EO is overturned by legislation or a new EO from the next President, Bush/Cheney will be able to determine which of the White House documents of the last seven years are too sensitive to be opened to the public and must be kept secret in perpetuity to "protect national interest."

Charlatan · 04-03-2008, 04:32 PM

Is the concern here about how they do it in general or because Bill might be back in the White House as the First Husband?

If it is the former, I don't see why we should care how a former President raises funds. He is no longer in the Administration and is no longer an elected official.

If it is the latter, do we offer this much scrutiny to all the First Ladies?

dc_dux · 04-03-2008, 05:42 PM

For me its an issue of how former presidents raise funds for their libraries (while still in office and beyond) and the potential impact on public policy even after their term in office....Clinton as a potential First Husband does add an additional layer of interest.

In addition to being a self-serving "historical" museum and storing presidential documents, these libraries conduct serious policy discussions, forums, etc. on domestic and international issues on a regular basis.

Both GHW Bush and Clinton Library Foundations are known to have received $millions in donations from the Saudi royal family, the Dubai Foundation, Kuwait interest groups, Taiwan business organizations, (and who knows what other foreign interests as noted in the OP article).

At the very least, there is a perception of a quid pro quo.....we (foreigners) donate to your library, you show your appreciation in the tone and direction of your policy forums on issues of concern to us.

The same applies to domestic contributors with an "agenda" that can use the Presidential Library policy forums as a platform.

We should at least know who they are.....foreign and domestic, particularly since former Pres Carter, Clinton, and to a lesser degree GHW Bush are still active in public policy debates.

edit:
And then there is the sleaze factor...no proof of direct correlation.

GWH Bush pardons Edwin Cox (bank fraud) - Daddy Cox donates $couple hundred thousand to the Bush library.

Clinton pardons Marc Rich (tax evasion) - wifey and friends pledge over $1million to the Clinton library.

We need transparency.

Strange Famous · 04-05-2008, 07:31 AM

The truth is that everyone suffers, because there is a general suspicion among the people that most of all politicians are corrupt and liars.

I think it happens too much, but not as much as people think - there are honest politicians out there.

I wouldnt have said that either Clinton is one of them though.

MSD · 04-07-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

The truth is that everyone suffers, because there is a general suspicion among the people that most of all politicians are corrupt and liars.

I think it happens too much, but not as much as people think - there are honest politicians out there.

I wouldnt have said that either Clinton is one of them though.

I think you hit the nail squarely on the head.

My personal feeling is that tax exempt status is a privilege granted to those who claim to work for toward goals other than generating revenue, and that the privilege should be balanced with the responsibility of transparency. Non-profits don't need the confidentiality that for-profit businesses do, and only by allowing themselves to be freely audited can they prove that they're truly acting in the interest of someone other than themselves.

37OHSSV · 04-17-2008, 08:48 PM

The Clinton Foundation--isn't that the "charity" that the Clintons <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">got a tax writeoff for</span> donated some of their income to?

powerclown · 04-17-2008, 09:39 PM

Interesting story. I never knew Presidential Libraries were such clearinghouses for political favors, no wonder Clinton's is so large, expensive and in the shape of a giant iron cock.

dc_dux · 04-18-2008, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Interesting story. I never knew Presidential Libraries were such clearinghouses for political favors, no wonder Clinton's is so large, expensive and in the shape of a giant iron cock.

powerclown......would you care to elaborate and explain how your visualization of a giant iron cock contributed anything of value to the discussion?

GHW Bush's library cost under $100 million; Clinton's cost under $200 million (plus another $200+ million for the foundation's other activities).

GW Bush has a goal of raising $500 million for his library alone....half in the form of "mega-donations" from wealth "friends of the family" including the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families.

Why should donations to presidential libraries be treated less than campaign donations (which are required by law to be disclosed)....at the very least during the time when a president is raising funds while still in office?

This is not a partisan issue.

Ustwo · 04-18-2008, 07:38 AM

Just out of curiosity, if you were going to create an institution like that, and needed say 100 million for it, how many bake sales would it take?

Undoubtedly many of the donors are looking at the very least to be seen favorably for their donations. What you then assume is the men receiving the donations are corrupt themselves and willing to change policy based on those donations.

GWH Bush pardons Edwin Cox (bank fraud) - Daddy Cox donates $couple hundred thousand to the Bush library.

This one was vetted by the justice department (unlike Clintons)

Could not a grateful father donate? I know if my son were pardoned for some crime, I'd find my checkbook for that president for thanks the only way I could give. I don't know the details of the crime specifically, or why a pardon was requested, (if I recall he already served his jail time). I do find it hard thinking GWB would be bought off for 100k.

Clinton pardons Marc Rich (tax evasion) - wifey and friends pledge over $1million to the Clinton library.

I'm still sort of in horror for the amount of sleeze in this one, but my feeling is that it wasn't done just for a Library donation. I don't think you make the most controversial pardon since Ford pardoned Nixon for a million dollar donation out of 200 million.

dc_dux · 04-18-2008, 08:20 AM

This is not about bake sales or donations by relatives for favors.

Its about transparency...in much the same manner as contributions to political candidates, particularly when a president is soliciting funds for his library whiles still in office (which both Bushs and Clinton did)

Why are you so opposed to that?

Ustwo · 04-18-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

This is not about bake sales or donations by relatives for favors.

Its about transparency...in much the same manner as contributions to political candidates, particularly when a president is soliciting funds for his library whiles still in office (which both Bushs and Clinton did)

Why are you so opposed to that?

Bush has the Cox donation in gold letters on the big money donors list when you walk in the place. I'm not sure what sort of transparency you are asking for that would be more transparent than that outside of a Vulcan mind meld to determine their motivations.

dc_dux · 04-18-2008, 08:36 AM

We are talking about quasi-public institutions....not private institutions.

I dont see anything wrong with a law that requires reporting all contributors; 90% of the House (390-34) agreed in a bill last year.

We require it for campaign contributions (even if you are the losing candidate)...why should contributions to a presidents library not be treated in a similar manner.

A president, raising funds while in office, should report it. And even out of office, those same presidents still have public policy influence.

We obviously disagree on the value of transparency and open government.

Ustwo · 04-18-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

We obviously disagree on the value of transparency and open government.

Not at all, I disagree on the value of a presidential library.

I already blew my wad in the other thread, but I see them as more edifices to ego than anything else.

04-03-2008, 06:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ironically, it is a Bush Executive Order that gutted the Presidential Records Act that is tangentially giving the Clinton's the cover they need to withhold Clinton Foundation (and Clinton Library) documents from the public. Its also Senate Republicans blocking legislation.The Dems tried to address the specific issue of disclosure of contributers to presidential libraries in a bill last year. The Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007 passed the House last year by a vote of 390-34. Republicans have kept it stalled in committee in the Senate for a year now. Senate Republicans also killed the President Records Act Amendments of 2007 (passed in the House by a vote of 333-93) which would have restored the original intent of the 1978 act that Bushg gutted unilaterally by Executive Order. Unless the Bush EO is overturned by legislation or a new EO from the next President, Bush/Cheney will be able to determine which of the White House documents of the last seven years are too sensitive to be opened to the public and must be kept secret in perpetuity to "protect national interest." __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-03-2008 at 06:41 AM..

04-03-2008, 04:32 PM	#3 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Is the concern here about how they do it in general or because Bill might be back in the White House as the First Husband? If it is the former, I don't see why we should care how a former President raises funds. He is no longer in the Administration and is no longer an elected official. If it is the latter, do we offer this much scrutiny to all the First Ladies? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-03-2008, 05:42 PM	#4 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	For me its an issue of how former presidents raise funds for their libraries (while still in office and beyond) and the potential impact on public policy even after their term in office....Clinton as a potential First Husband does add an additional layer of interest. In addition to being a self-serving "historical" museum and storing presidential documents, these libraries conduct serious policy discussions, forums, etc. on domestic and international issues on a regular basis. Both GHW Bush and Clinton Library Foundations are known to have received $millions in donations from the Saudi royal family, the Dubai Foundation, Kuwait interest groups, Taiwan business organizations, (and who knows what other foreign interests as noted in the OP article). At the very least, there is a perception of a quid pro quo.....we (foreigners) donate to your library, you show your appreciation in the tone and direction of your policy forums on issues of concern to us. The same applies to domestic contributors with an "agenda" that can use the Presidential Library policy forums as a platform. We should at least know who they are.....foreign and domestic, particularly since former Pres Carter, Clinton, and to a lesser degree GHW Bush are still active in public policy debates. edit: And then there is the sleaze factor...no proof of direct correlation. GWH Bush pardons Edwin Cox (bank fraud) - Daddy Cox donates $couple hundred thousand to the Bush library. Clinton pardons Marc Rich (tax evasion) - wifey and friends pledge over $1million to the Clinton library. We need transparency. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-03-2008 at 07:35 PM..

04-05-2008, 07:31 AM	#5 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	The truth is that everyone suffers, because there is a general suspicion among the people that most of all politicians are corrupt and liars. I think it happens too much, but not as much as people think - there are honest politicians out there. I wouldnt have said that either Clinton is one of them though. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-18-2008, 07:38 AM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Just out of curiosity, if you were going to create an institution like that, and needed say 100 million for it, how many bake sales would it take? Undoubtedly many of the donors are looking at the very least to be seen favorably for their donations. What you then assume is the men receiving the donations are corrupt themselves and willing to change policy based on those donations. GWH Bush pardons Edwin Cox (bank fraud) - Daddy Cox donates $couple hundred thousand to the Bush library. This one was vetted by the justice department (unlike Clintons) Could not a grateful father donate? I know if my son were pardoned for some crime, I'd find my checkbook for that president for thanks the only way I could give. I don't know the details of the crime specifically, or why a pardon was requested, (if I recall he already served his jail time). I do find it hard thinking GWB would be bought off for 100k. Clinton pardons Marc Rich (tax evasion) - wifey and friends pledge over $1million to the Clinton library. I'm still sort of in horror for the amount of sleeze in this one, but my feeling is that it wasn't done just for a Library donation. I don't think you make the most controversial pardon since Ford pardoned Nixon for a million dollar donation out of 200 million. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-17-2008, 08:48 PM	#7 (permalink)
37OHSSV Upright Location: Lesbian trapped in a man's body	The Clinton Foundation--isn't that the "charity" that the Clintons <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">got a tax writeoff for</span> donated some of their income to?

04-17-2008, 09:39 PM	#8 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Interesting story. I never knew Presidential Libraries were such clearinghouses for political favors, no wonder Clinton's is so large, expensive and in the shape of a giant iron cock.

04-18-2008, 08:20 AM	#11 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	This is not about bake sales or donations by relatives for favors. Its about transparency...in much the same manner as contributions to political candidates, particularly when a president is soliciting funds for his library whiles still in office (which both Bushs and Clinton did) Why are you so opposed to that? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-18-2008, 08:36 AM	#13 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	We are talking about quasi-public institutions....not private institutions. I dont see anything wrong with a law that requires reporting all contributors; 90% of the House (390-34) agreed in a bill last year. We require it for campaign contributions (even if you are the losing candidate)...why should contributions to a presidents library not be treated in a similar manner. A president, raising funds while in office, should report it. And even out of office, those same presidents still have public policy influence. We obviously disagree on the value of transparency and open government. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-18-2008 at 08:41 AM..