The phrase “20/20 hindsight” is often used in a derogatory fashion to call out those who claim better insight into a matter simply because they get to view it after-the-fact. Sometimes, however, it takes retrospective clarity to open our eyes to something that should have been obvious all along.
Consider a report that foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation are being curtailed since Hillary’s loss to Trump. The report goes into detail about the corruption/appearance of corruption associated with past contributions, and about how Wikileaks and other disclosures of potential pay-to-play episodes hurt donations. The less-asked question, though, is why, exactly, would people, companies and governments choose to donate to the Clinton Foundation?
There are countless charitable and good-works organizations, both in America and around the world. Their founders often set out with a purpose, and many of them leverage the star power of high profile individuals to solicit donations. There’s nothing wrong with that – even charities are subject to market forces, and must compete with each other for scarce donor resources. In using their star power to pull donations, the Clintons are not doing anything different than any other celebrity spokespersons.
The Clintons, however, are (were?) not merely big names. They have (had?) power, influence and access. Both are (were?) extremely powerful players in the Democratic Party, they have (had?) enormous political influence, Hillary was Secretary of State, Bill was a President. Access isn’t (wasn’t?) merely “wow, look at my selfie with the Clintons at their charity gala” bragging rights. Access offered opportunity.
Beyond obvious tit-for-tat exchanges, beyond favorable decisions from State regarding arms sales, being seen as “in the favor of the Clintons” can pack enormous weight in many circumstances. Even a photo with a smiling Bill or Hillary can impress business associates or be used against political rivals enough to change outcomes.
Lets ask ourselves, why, of all the charities in the world, would people choose to donate to the Clinton Foundation? It’s not unique in its works, it’s not focused on an issue that suffers from a dearth of charitable support, it’s not even known as being particularly efficient in its money management (quite the opposite by some reports). So, why?
Two choices: Either the Clintons are so starry-eye, gaga awe inspiring that people are mesmerized into opening their wallets, or donors anticipate some benefit from donating to their Foundation. Certainly, the former exist, but they’re typically people who are no position to benefit from their donations to any charity. They are you and me, the rank-and-file, the masses. We’re not the issue. The powerful are. The people, companies and nations that can benefit from friends-of-the-Clintons are. Why would anyone believe that this crowd would donate to the Clinton Foundation without expectation of benefit?
This should be obvious even without the tell-tale drop-off in contributions. The latter just reinforces the obvious conclusion: that many donors expect (ed?) something more than the simple good feeling from donating to good causes.
Why do so many high-end government officials land seven figure consulting gigs in the private sector? It’s not for the skill sets they developed, it’s for access. Their rolodex, their personal relationships with others still in government, their “insider” ability to get past gatekeepers. In politics, pay-to-play is the name of the game. To think otherwise is little more than willful blindness.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters