Zephyr Teachout: What the Clintons Can Learn From Ben Franklin's Foreign Money Scandal

[RiverLover]

What the Clintons Can Learn From Ben Franklin's Foreign Money Scandal
5/3/2015

More than 200 years ago, we included in our Constitution a provision that forbids federal officers from accepting a gift of any kind whatever from foreign interests without first getting permission from Congress (Article I, Section 9, the so-called Emoluments Clause). We borrowed the provision from the Netherlands, where it was ridiculed for being overly fussy about corruption. But we put it in both our Constitution and in that document’s forerunner, the Articles of Confederation, as a defense against emulating the corrupt culture of Europe....

(snip)

...Over the past several years, Bill Clinton has been given millions of dollars for foreign and domestic speeches, with the greatest number of sponsors coming from the financial industry. At the same time, he solicited and received millions of dollars from foreign and domestic interests, including. Many of the donors and sponsors had interests that were affected by State Department policies, and all of the donors, past and current, have interests that would be affected by a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Hillary Clinton has not addressed the issue publicly, but some of her defenders have argued that without a smoking gun, or evidence of quid pro quo, there’s nothing to be concerned about.

As the framers knew, we don’t need that in order to be concerned.

It’s not surprising that the Clintons do not want to answer questions about foreign donations. So far, they have not addressed questions about the apparent conflict of interest, leaving the Clinton Foundation to respond. (They had company: Thomas Jefferson was so annoyed by the Emoluments Clause that he hid his own later gift from the King of France, a diamond-encrusted portrait; he had his aide take out the diamonds and sell them to pay down his debt. He was not, he wrote, going to humiliate himself by going before “the gridiron of Congress.”) But as citizens we must ask these questions. Some Democrats want to ignore the issue, but love of party, as well as love of country, requires us to demand more.

I am a Democrat. I will vote Democratic in the general election. But I refuse to allow my party to be silent in the face of serious accusations of conflict of interest. ...

(Snip)

Please read more~
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/03/the-clintons-snuff-box-problem.html

[cali]

1. It is serious. it is not all made up crap from the right wing

to anyone who looks, it's obvious that there is an appearance of serious (and serial) conflict of interest issues. Without saying it goes beyond appearance, this in and of itself, is damaging. Why on earth, weren't they more careful?

[RiverLover]

2. Exactly.

It looks very bad, very corrupt, to anyone who is honest about it. Its not a made up RW smear. It just is.

[cali]

3. It's a stark illustration of Bernie's issues about the intersection

of money and politics.

Here's another thing I don't get: By the time she was appointed SoS, the Clintons were already worth tens of millions, why the need to take these gigs? And if Bill's need or desire for hefty pay days were so great, couldn't he find gigs that didn't appear to be in conflict with Hillary's position?

[RiverLover]

4. Half a million, in one case, for one speech, from a former president with a wife who is SoS.

Quite the gig!

I don't think anyone would pay that much $$$ simply for a speech. And that's the problem.

I'm SO glad to finally see Democrats speaking up about it. I do NOT want to be "the corrupt party". We need more Teachouts. We're better than this.

[forthemiddle]

5. Hillary answer questions?

Isn't it a fact that she has only answered SEVEN questions from reporters since announcing her candidacy?
Yet Bernie gave a full out press conference, and is appearing on any media outlet that will host him?

Does any of her supporters have a problem with that? Out of curiosity, how long should she keep that up?

[RiverLover]

6. Yep...and her answers didn't even answer the questions.

Here Are All Seven Media Questions Hillary Clinton Has Answered During Her Campaign
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/here-are-all-seven-media-questions-hillary-clinton-has-answered-during-her-campaign-20150427
4/27/2015

[forthemiddle]

7. I truly think she thinks that she is the "anointed" one!

There have been many innuendos that when she lost the 2008 primary that she was "promised" the 2016 primary with no serious competition, and I think she is now using that as an excuse to look like Royalty.
Are we now turning into the Republicans, and is it now "Her Turn"? Is she the Democrats Bob Dole, or John Mccain? I hope not!

My biggest fear is that she will continue this "no questions" policy throughout the Primaries and into the General election. The Republicans meme already seems to be "Will you be asking the other side these questions". Rand Paul has done it with the abortion question. Walker did it when he insinuated that our candidates never get the "fringe" questions thrown at them.

The biggest way to get the media to turn against you is to piss them off. Will the main stream media stop asking questions, or more likely will the new talking point be "why won't you make yourself available to the press"?

[RiverLover]

8. It won't help the situation, pissing off the media, that's for sure. /nt

[cali]

9. kick. because this sucks for democrats and we damn well should be talkingabout it.

[cali]

10. More from this article

<snip>

Second, I care deeply about my party, but I believe the health of a party depends upon the openness of internal debate. I do not believe accusations of outside influence are fatal, but I believe refusing to talk about them might be.

We do not have a snuff box clause for the spouses of public officials—they were not contemplated in the founding document. Instead, we have an election—a “gridiron” of sorts. Hillary Clinton cannot undo the past, but she can help explain it.

First, she can answer any questions about how she and her husband talk about foreign policy and domestic policy in light of the need to protect against donors using access to influence. They are not naive and must be aware of the political motives of donors: how did they, and do they, address these conflicts? Unlike campaign donations, which Hillary Clinton has to pursue under our current system of privately financed campaigns, these were avoidable situations. How did the Clintons think about, and manage, the efforts of donors and sponsors to influence them?

Hillary Clinton has called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. But, ironically, her defenders are effectively using a Citizens United defense—if there’s no quid pro quo, there’s no problem. Access and influence are not corrupting. In effect, the troubling morality of Citizens United has become the official morality of Clinton’s defenders.

<snip>

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/03/the-clintons-snuff-box-problem.html

[RiverLover]

12. Thanks for this cali~

I wish everyone would go to the link & read the whole thing! And they should try to not be defensive, but see the situation for what it is. Its not good for US. Soft corruption that is more difficult to prove is perhaps more damaging than outright bribery caught with a wire. Its more insidious & effective & its ongoing. No reason to stop if it won't go to court & you've got a media machine to control the narrative, blame it on being a "RW smear" when its truly corruption at one of the highest levels.

[cali]

11. , the hypocrisy on this is just too much for me.

this issue is not going away. It is not merely a made up problem, and trying to shut people up about is like trying to stick your finger in a dike. It doesn't work. We should be able to discuss it.

[HereSince1628]

13. This is, in part, about the absurdity of corporate identity unique from it's officer & owners

A corporation, whether profit or non-profit--whether charitable or exploitative, is a group of people, that group may only be as large as the officers who make all the decisions about it, or it may be a group of people who appoint a smaller group of people to administer the activities of the group.

In common sense terms, the corporation cannot be separated from the interests and desires of the people who make up the group. When someone makes gifts, or grants good will to the corporation, common sense suggests those gifts and grants devolve to at least some of the people who are the group.

But under the law, corporations were constructed to make the group a mostly separate entity, particularly so that risks and liabilities of group action would be limited to the value of investments of the individuals who are the members of the group.

Consequently, foundations are constructions that serve, at least in part, as foiles to protect the people who operate them.

Clever people outside foundations can use these structures to obfuscate the generation of very valuable 'goodwill' (aka chits, political capital), that can be drawn upon at a later, distant time making quid pro quo more tenuous to reveal.

The capacity to create such irresolvable grayness and appearance of conflicts is a strong reason for a person contemplating a political career in the US to avoid them.