From: senaey fethi (senaeyfethi@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jan 27 2009 - 04:56:47 EST
A Rocky Start For Transparency: The Clintons' Refusal To Disclose Foundation Donors Casts A Pall On Obama's Promises
Monday, Jan. 26, 2009
RULES OF THE GAME
A Rocky Start For Transparency
The Clintons' Refusal To Disclose Foundation Donors Casts A Pall On Obama's Promises Of Ethics Reform
Monday, Jan. 26, 2009
by Eliza Newlin Carney
It's ironic that President Obama should sign an executive order increasing government transparency on the very day that the Senate confirmed Hillary Rodham Clinton to be secretary of State.
That's because Clinton has rejected efforts to fully and promptly disclose donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation, the multimillion-dollar charity run by her husband, President Clinton.
No one on Capitol Hill has questioned Hillary Clinton's qualifications or integrity. But the hundreds of millions in unrestricted contributions that underwrite the Clinton foundation, many of them from foreign governments, can't help but pose a problem for the incoming secretary of State. Clinton's confirmation by a 94-2 vote on Jan. 21 may quell the controversy for now, but the appearance of a conflict will not go away. If anything, it will only intensify as time goes on.
When foundations run by politicians attract controversy, it harms the credibility of all charitable groups -- at a time when they can little afford it.
The Clintons deserve credit for at least agreeing to disclose past donors to the foundation, which has collected $500 million from some 200,000 contributors. Under a memorandum of understanding agreed to by the president's transition team and the Clinton Foundation last month, new donors will be disclosed once a year, and foreign government pledges will be submitted to the State Department ethics officials for review.
"I will certainly do everything in my power to make sure that the good work of the foundation continues without there being any untoward effects on me and my service, and be very conscious of any questions that are raised," Clinton assured the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month. Clinton stressed that the agreement goes above and beyond existing disclosure requirements and that State Department and Office of Government Ethics officials "concluded there is not an inherent conflict of interest in any of my husband's work at all."
But that's not saying much, given how little disclosure is legally required. Existing rules allow charitable donors to remain completely anonymous; these should be strengthened for politically affiliated charities.
The ethics controversy now dogging Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is just the latest in a long list of congressional scandals involving nonprofits run by politicians. Rangel reportedly took action to preserve a tax loophole for Nabors Industries at the same time he was asking the company's chief executive to donate money to the Rangel School, prompting calls for an investigation.
The ethics scandals that unseated Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif., that helped force former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, out of office, and that landed lobbyist Jack Abramoff in jail, all involved charitable organizations with cozy ties to public officials.
Earlier this month the House overwhelmingly approved a bill that would require disclosure of donations to any organization set up to underwrite a presidential library. This reflects growing concern on Capitol Hill over the large, anonymous money funding these multimillion-dollar enterprises. Donations to President Clinton's library foundation from the spouse of financier Marc Rich caused a stir in 2001. Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, who pardoned Rich at the time and who is still awaiting confirmation, can attest to the appearance of a problem.
"In an era where some foundations, such as [the Bill & Melinda] Gates [Foundation], have and distribute more money than some countries' GDPs and are perceived as exceptionally powerful non-state actors, the potential influence of Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation... cannot be easily dismissed as unimportant," said Rick Cohen, a national correspondent for The Nonprofit Quarterly, responding to questions via e-mail.
The steps recommended by such GOP senators as John Cornyn of Texas, Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and David Vitter of Louisiana, who also sits on the Foreign Relations panel, were hardly unreasonable. These included quarterly (not annual) disclosure of all foundation donors. But the Clintons refused to budge.
That's particularly unfortunate, given that the foundation's donors over the years include numerous governments with a stake in U.S. foreign policy. These include Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Kuwait, Norway, Oman and Qatar. Saudi Arabia alone gave somewhere between $10 million and $25 million. Prominent business magnates from India, Nigeria and the Ukraine are also top donors.
Inevitably, those who oppose greater disclosure for politically connected foundations point to the organizations' many good works. This is true for the Clinton Foundation, as well, which oversees more than half a dozen admirable global initiatives to fight hunger, poverty, unemployment and HIV/AIDS. Yet when foundations run by politicians attract controversy, as they invariably do, it harms the credibility of all charitable groups -- at a time when they can little afford it.
The perception of a conflict also poses risks for incoming Secretary of State Clinton and for the Obama administration, which has staked its reputation on government ethics. As Cornyn said on the Senate floor the day of Clinton's confirmation: "If we're going to restore trust between the American people and their government, we need to be careful that the reality matches the rhetoric." The agreement governing the Clinton Foundation fails to meet that test.