Who Needs the Clinton Foundation? By James Freeman
The Clinton Foundation’s website features a helpful series of questions and answers on its new policy. Here’s one that addresses the issue: “Since Secretary Clinton is running for President, why don’t you ban foreign government contributions altogether?” The answer, according to the foundation, is that “Secretary Clinton resigned from the board of the Clinton Foundation when she announced that she is running for President.” The foundation elaborates that it does great work around the world, including helping farmers in Malawi and Rwanda, and notes that many of its programs “are funded by multi-year government grants.” The lucky six governments that can continue to write checks for these programs are Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
Mrs. Clinton may have resigned from the board, but of course her name remains on the door and her husband and daughter remain on the board, along with other family friends and associates. If the former Secretary of State’s resignation really solved the conflict problem, there would be no reason to limit donations to just the big six.
But more fundamentally, the question is why the Clinton Foundation is an essential conduit for government aid from large industrialized nations to the Third World. Will the farmers in Malawi and Rwanda only accept assistance from the Clintons? Are the unsophisticated rubes in the donor governments, which include the world’s 4th and 5th largest economies, incapable of distributing aid without paying the Clintons to manage it?
The implication here is that the Clinton Foundation is a systemically important charitable institution, a sort of non-profit Citigroup, without which the world’s poor cannot be fed and the environment cannot be protected. It’s not clear if anyone believes this, but even if the foundation houses unique resources unavailable in any of the world’s great universities or philanthropic organizations, perhaps this is the appropriate time to find a new home for these assets.
The Clintons like to talk about all the causes they are supporting around the world, but they should give more thought to the cause of clean government in the United States. A healthy democracy remains free from undue influence both in fact and in public perception. There is nothing wrong with a foreign government having influence on our policies. On a range of issues, such as energy, the U.S. would benefit if our government spent more time listening to Canada, for example. But the Canadians should not be asked to pay for the privilege—or even approached for a donation that may appear to be a vehicle to exercise influence.
The Clinton Foundation’s financial report for the year 2013, the most recent available on its website, says that “total revenue and support” that year added up to more than $294 million, while expenses were around $223 million. The foundation says its overhead costs for management and fundraising consumed about 12% of expenditures, and that the organization finished the year with more than $283 million in net assets. Can the Clintons really not afford to pursue their good works without accepting checks from foreign governments?
Comments are closed.
