The Clinton Foundation controversy
The current US presidential race is certainly one of the most controversial and divisive ones in my living memory
The writer is a development anthropologist currently based in Fairfax, Virginia
The current US presidential race is certainly one of the most controversial and divisive ones in my living memory. Leaving aside Trump’s shenanigans, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has also been continually dogged by an email scandal, where she apparently compromised state security for the sake of convenience by using a private email server for classified information while she was Secretary of State. Being investigated by the FBI for this negligence, Clinton’s behaviour was described as being “extremely careless”, although the bureau decided to press no charges against her back in July. The FBI is now supposed to make public a report on the Clinton email investigation in coming days, so this controversy has not died down completely.
With just a couple of months left till the elections, Clinton’s campaign has successfully managed to improve her chances of winning in the electoral projections. Opinion polls have also become more favourable towards her, particularly after Trump’s confrontation with Khizr Khan, the Muslim father of a soldier killed in Iraq. But now another major challenge to Hillary’s integrity has emerged with regard to the Clinton Foundation, which may hurt her chances of winning the Presidential race all over again.
Even back in 2009, when Hillary Clinton was being considered for Secretary of State, her critics had highlighted her affiliation with the Clinton Foundation as being a problem. The foundation had then made public a list of donors, which turned out to include a number of big corporations, foreign governments including the Saudi royal family, and other oligarchs. However, questions are now being raised about the amount of time Hillary spent meeting the Clinton Foundation’s donors in an official capacity during her time as Secretary of State. Hillary’s involvement in the Clinton Foundation has long been a topic of public scrutiny. According to the recent Associated Press investigation, at least 85 of 154 people who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programmes. Combined, these 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million to the foundation.
Big donors exerting their influence over US politicians is nothing new. US politicians are often meeting with their donors, and it is the norm for Congressmen or even Presidents to attend fundraisers. The possibility of powerful lobbies exerting their influence over decision-makers is thus evident. However, the controversy surrounding the Clinton Foundation is different. Instead of corporations or foreign entities supporting her campaign, they are able to donate money directly to her family’s foundation, something they can’t do with other candidates. It would be like Imran Khan accepting donations for the Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital in lieu of giving attention and time to its donors within the K-P, where his party currently controls the provincial setup.
In the case of Clinton, there is evidence that she did give access to her foundation’s donors while she was the chief US diplomat, so the possibility of her doing the same if she becomes the country’s chief executive cannot be ruled out. Subsequent to these latest revelations, Bill Clinton has just announced that the foundation will stop accepting donations if Hillary wins in November, and that he will also step away from his involvement with the foundation, but their daughter will continue working with it. This announcement aims to limit the conflicts of interest that would be created by a global foundation whose donors are potentially giving it funds in the hopes of gaining access to a serving President.
The Clinton Foundation aims to promote global health and human rights in developing countries around the world, so donations to such an entity would probably do some good. However, the fact that its donors will likely see the Clinton Foundation as a way to gain influence, it would be wise for all the Clintons (Bill, Hillary and Chelsea) to stop accepting donations until the election campaign is over, and then to completely distance themselves from the foundation and its work, if Hillary wins. This would allow the foundation to continue doing what it does, without muddying the waters of state leadership and decision-making by politicised donations.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 2nd, 2016.
With just a couple of months left till the elections, Clinton’s campaign has successfully managed to improve her chances of winning in the electoral projections. Opinion polls have also become more favourable towards her, particularly after Trump’s confrontation with Khizr Khan, the Muslim father of a soldier killed in Iraq. But now another major challenge to Hillary’s integrity has emerged with regard to the Clinton Foundation, which may hurt her chances of winning the Presidential race all over again.
Even back in 2009, when Hillary Clinton was being considered for Secretary of State, her critics had highlighted her affiliation with the Clinton Foundation as being a problem. The foundation had then made public a list of donors, which turned out to include a number of big corporations, foreign governments including the Saudi royal family, and other oligarchs. However, questions are now being raised about the amount of time Hillary spent meeting the Clinton Foundation’s donors in an official capacity during her time as Secretary of State. Hillary’s involvement in the Clinton Foundation has long been a topic of public scrutiny. According to the recent Associated Press investigation, at least 85 of 154 people who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programmes. Combined, these 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million to the foundation.
Big donors exerting their influence over US politicians is nothing new. US politicians are often meeting with their donors, and it is the norm for Congressmen or even Presidents to attend fundraisers. The possibility of powerful lobbies exerting their influence over decision-makers is thus evident. However, the controversy surrounding the Clinton Foundation is different. Instead of corporations or foreign entities supporting her campaign, they are able to donate money directly to her family’s foundation, something they can’t do with other candidates. It would be like Imran Khan accepting donations for the Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital in lieu of giving attention and time to its donors within the K-P, where his party currently controls the provincial setup.
In the case of Clinton, there is evidence that she did give access to her foundation’s donors while she was the chief US diplomat, so the possibility of her doing the same if she becomes the country’s chief executive cannot be ruled out. Subsequent to these latest revelations, Bill Clinton has just announced that the foundation will stop accepting donations if Hillary wins in November, and that he will also step away from his involvement with the foundation, but their daughter will continue working with it. This announcement aims to limit the conflicts of interest that would be created by a global foundation whose donors are potentially giving it funds in the hopes of gaining access to a serving President.
The Clinton Foundation aims to promote global health and human rights in developing countries around the world, so donations to such an entity would probably do some good. However, the fact that its donors will likely see the Clinton Foundation as a way to gain influence, it would be wise for all the Clintons (Bill, Hillary and Chelsea) to stop accepting donations until the election campaign is over, and then to completely distance themselves from the foundation and its work, if Hillary wins. This would allow the foundation to continue doing what it does, without muddying the waters of state leadership and decision-making by politicised donations.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 2nd, 2016.