What would the Founders have thought about the Clinton Foundation

[cali]

and the nexus between politics and money?

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

The King of France gave Ben Franklin a snuff box. He did le roi no favors in return—but he soon came to see that that wasn’t good enough.

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>

The Americans, rigidly rejecting European custom, believed that acceptance of a luxurious gift by someone in power was itself a threat. Perhaps Franklin would be more generous toward French commercial interests simply by the operation of normal human sympathies, which to tend to be more charitable toward those who give us gifts. The framers tried to put a check on those sympathies, or at least put a block in the relationship, by requiring that Congress approve any gifts to federal officials.

<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.

<snip>

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

[JoePhilly]

1. Which law have the Clinton's broken?

And are you suggesting that the Clinton foundation needed congressional approval to take donations?

[cali]

2. that's exactly Zephyr's point. It's not about laws being broken

no, she is not suggesting any such thing. Neither is Doyle McManus in his excellent piece. It's about VOLUNTARILY not opening yourself up to charges of conflict. She broke her promise to the Obama administration- that's one problem:

<snip>

When she was nominated as secretary of State in 2009, Clinton promised that she would bend over backward to avoid potentially compromising situations.

“Out of [an] abundance of caution and a desire to avoid even the appearance … of a conflict,” Clinton said, the foundation would agree to strict rules: It would disclose all its donors and clear new contributions from foreign governments with the State Department.

Only that didn't happen. The biggest branch of the Clintons' charitable network, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, never complied with the agreement at all, according to the Boston Globe. It neither disclosed its donors nor cleared new contributions. (A spokesman said they didn't think it was necessary. After media inquiries, the program published a list of donors last month.) The Clinton Foundation also failed to clear a donation of $500,000 from Algeria. (An oversight, the foundation said.) And the foundation's Canadian affiliate collected millions of dollars without disclosing donors' names. (Canadian law guarantees privacy to donors, but the foundation could have asked them to voluntarily disclose their identities; it didn't until last week.)

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0503-mcmanus-clinton-foundation-20150503-column.html

[JoePhilly]

12. Looks like that last paragraph shows the Clinton's ARE making more information available.

Or am I reading it wrong?

They published a list last month ... admitted the did not vet one donation ... and have asked their Canadian affiliate to release their names as well.

For all the screaming, yours included ... it looks like the Clinton's are doing pretty much everything they can to be transparent about the foundation.

But why focus on that reality when screaming is so much more fun!!

[LordGlenconner]

18. +1

OP has been gleefully spamming RW talking points on this issue for awhile now. But hey, it's all in the name of "Bernie" so you know, whatevs.

[Buzz Clik]

3. What would the founders have thought about toasters?

The internet?
Twitter?
Boxing matches?
Cars?
Aspartame?
Velcro?
Teflon?
Toothpaste?
Deodorant?
Gerbils?

[cali]

4. poor attempt at digression. try reading the article.

too bad you can't scream about how the author is a right winger.

[Scootaloo]

6. You realize that gerbils were not invented, right?

[Buzz Clik]

13. What?

I also suspect that the Founding Fathers were not demigods, but that is probably the minority view.

[Scootaloo]

17. You listed a string of modern inventions... and gerbils.

I'm just saying, gerbils were not invented.

[Scootaloo]

5. The "founders" were the wealthiest men in the newfangled country

In most cases that wealth was directly generated through the labor of chattel slaves. In the remainder, it was gained indirectly through the institution of slavery. in a few cases, such as washington's, it was directly linked to violence against Native Americans too.

What would the founding fathers say about "the nexus between politics and money?" well, most of them were pretty gigantic hypocrites, so...

[onehandle]

7. The founders were hyper-socialist mega-Christian innocent heroes and NASCAR fans.

How dare you disparage them.

I get my history lessons from DU and Fox News, so I should know.

[Buzz Clik]

14. +1

[DURHAM D]

8. I think it is time to state the obvious -

the Clinton Foundation is causing chemtrails.

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. ha

I had to look it up....funny!

[greytdemocrat]

10. Don't tell that

to OneBlueSky, it'll set him off...

[DURHAM D]

11. I don't know who that is

so that in itself is a conspiracy theory.

[geek tragedy]

15. Considering they thought it was okay to own other human beings and set up

the electoral college to keep power reserved to aristocrats rather than commoners, meh.

[MineralMan]

16. Now, don't be inconvenient...