Non-Transparency of Ex-President’s Foreign Contributors

Back when we had more respect for the ordinary citizen politician, with better reason to, and Harry Truman’s retirement near penury became known, a generous pension and expenses were established for former presidents. Back then, by the way, ex-presidents did not engage in their own foreign policy in opposition to national policies.

Jimmy Carter broke the mold, and his Carter Center has over $200-million of investments and takes in well over $100-million a year. Much of those funds come from Middle East donors. The Investors Business Daily summarized:

The ex-president's irritating opinions on Mideast matters are one thing. But the funding of his Atlanta think tank by big-money, state-linked Arab sources is quite another — and points to a conflict of interest….

It may be easy to dismiss Carter's nutty statements about Israel as the ranting of a bitter man in his twilight years. But it's not so easy to look the other way as Arab cash flows into the Carter Center from people known to demand something in return. It is worth noting that the center's anticipated contributions receivable and Carter's anti-Israeli diatribes have both increased dramatically.

Today’s Wall Street Journal weighs in on the William J. Clinton Foundation:

Bill Clinton established that body in 1997 while still President. It has since raised half-a-billion dollars, which has been spent on Mr. Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas and global philanthropic initiatives. The mystery remains its donors, and whether these contributors might one day seek to call in their chits with a President Hillary Clinton….

Presidential candidates also aren't allowed to accept campaign checks from foreigners, but, again, no such restrictions apply to foundations. We know that donations to the Clinton Foundation have come from the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, and the governments of Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Brunei. Wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen have also given big.

Mr. Clinton has also accepted money from a Chinese Internet company, Alibaba, which aids the Beijing government in censoring the Web. Most recently, one of Alibaba's Chinese homepages posted a "most wanted" list of Tibetan rioters, with pictures and a phone number for informants to call. Mrs. Clinton has condemned the Chinese crackdown on Tibet, but her husband notably hasn't returned the Alibaba money….

How many favors has Mr. Clinton done for foreign donors? There's no way of knowing. The former President insists he's aware of no conflicts. Notably, however, donations to the Clinton Foundation soared as Mrs. Clinton neared a presidential run – to $135 million in 2006, 70% more than the year before. Somebody seems to think there is value in being generous to the Clintons.

Mrs. Clinton says the foundation is her husband's business, not hers. But as she has said in the past, a Clinton Presidency is two for the price of one. Americans deserve to know who has been donating to the Clinton Foundation.

As I wrote in “Hidden Foreign Contributions Affect US Elections”: “There’s a huge loophole – or, more correctly shroud – over contributions by foreigners to US non-profits, who heavily shape public discussion affecting our elections – and other policies.” They are not required to be publicly revealed. The Examiner took up the need for transparency: “[T]he solution is full disclosure of all donations to any entity in which a former president or other federal officeholder is an officer, advisor or consultant.” With the revolving door among politically active non-profits and federal jobs, that ought to bring similar transparency to the untaxed non-profits (what Democrats usually refer to as a tax-subsidy or tax-expenditure) affecting our elections.

As the Wall Street Journal says, “Transparency is a popular word in this presidential election” for all three leading prospectives. Let’s demand their position on transparency of donations to former presidents’ foundations and former officials’ non-profit employers, where they are usually very well-paid. Don’t we deserve to know who is influencing our policies and elections?