Power and Prestige

Following a debate in July 2007, Hillary Clinton labelled Barack Obama as "irresponsible and frankly naive" for his willingness to meet with hostile foreign leaders. She claimed that "it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America's presidency" because she doesn't "want to be used for propaganda purposes."

Indeed, since leaving office, her husband has become a strong advocate for noble goals through the Clinton Foundation. The most notable of these activities is his Clinton Global Initiative, aimed at addressing extreme poverty that plagues the globe. He has published a book entitled, "Giving," and he hosts yearly pledge events--great fundraisers with ambitious goals and strong safeguards to ensure this publicity is used properly. Through this, we see the office of President being used in a responsible and effective manner, even after the end of a constitutional term.

With the publication of the Clinton family's tax returns yesterday, this responsible public advocacy is severly undermined. First, the amounts donated to charity by the Clintons are pathetically low, when taken into perspective. Sure, $10 million was donated over the 7 years in question, but that quantity is undermined through the internal donation between Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, and we have limited scope of the effectiveness of this money for charitable purposes. Furthermore, of the $6.3 million earned from a book on giving, only $1 mil went to charity. After taxes, that leaves Bill with roughly $3.2 mil profit. Furthermore, the New York Times correctly points out that the Clintons often fall short of the 5% that Bill claims we should all donate to charity.

However, despite a tang of hypocricy, the Clintons donated $10 million to charity since leaving the White House. Furthermore, through their public advocacy, experience, and hard work, I sincerely believe that they have done a great deal of good for the world's poor.

The real question, though, is how else have they been using "the power and prestige of America's presidency?" This is where a staggering number of $45 million comes into play. This is the combined earning of Bill's speaking engagements and consultancy windfalls, deducted 33% for taxes. Not only is this a staggering amount, but it was gained through highly objectionable means--using the office of President as a private propaganda machine. For a significant fee from uranium dealers, our former President will fly to Kazakhstan to meet with the country's president before the negotiation of a mining deal (see link below). Or, investment bankers can throw an extravagent dinner with money raised from the subprime mortgage bubble, and Bill will be happy to speak for a quarter million dollars. Tony Rezko can even line up to have his picture taken with the ex-Pres, which routinely costs $4k per person (though Rezko seems to have been ripped off for $10k).

Of course, I don't really believe that anything illegal has occurred here. I also believe that Bill has a right to make money, even copious amounts. However, the moral ambiguity surrounding many of these income streams makes them inappropriate for the public eye. If Bill wishes to cash in on his political career, he should accept that his political career is over.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?scp=1&sq=burkle%20kazakhstan&st=nyt

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/24/usa.ewenmacaskill

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/the-rezko-clinton-connection/