Buying the Clintons

December 20th, 2007 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Guest author Ed Morrissey takes a closer look at the donors of the foundation of the Clintons. Can one buy their loyalty?

I’m thrilled to be able to publish a guest post by one of the most intelligent, eloquent and thoughtful bloggers in the blogosphere: Ed Morrissey. Thanks Ed!

The Clintons have long kept hidden the identities of the donors to their foundation, and now we know why. The New York Times finally got a look at the books, and they discovered millions of dollars coming from people with a lot to lose during the Clinton administration. Shockingly, the pace of donations has accelerated as Hillary comes closer to winning the Democratic presidential nomination:

But an examination of the foundation demonstrates how its fund-raising has at times fostered the potential for conflict.

The New York Times has compiled the first comprehensive list of 97 donors who gave or pledged a total of $69 million for the Clinton presidential library in the final years of the Clinton administration. The examination found that while some $1 million contributors were longtime Clinton friends, others were seeking policy changes from the administration. Two pledged $1 million each while they or their companies were under investigation by the Justice Department.

Other donations came from supporters who had been ensnared in campaign finance scandals surrounding Mr. Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign.

Before we get to the people who appeared to buy favor with the Clintons domestically, we should take a look at the Clinton foreign policy of donations. The foundation took money from the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, and the UAE, among others. Remember the fit that the potential sale of management rights for American ports to a Dubai company started? What will this UAE donation cause?

The real interesting part comes with domestic donors. Anheuser-Busch donated $200,000 to the foundation less than a month after winning a favorable ruling on advertising from the Clinton administration’s FTC. Democratic fundraiser William Brandt tossed a million dollars onto the plate while being investigated by the Justice Department for potential perjury to Congress. Three months later, he was off the hook, and now is one of Hillary’s bundlers. Bernard Schwartz, CEO of Loral, gave $250,000 while his company got investigated for improperly giving satellite technology to China. It took the Bush administration to conclude the case with a hefty fine against Loral.

Not everyone got what they wanted. Investors in Nextwave, a struggling telecom, gave six figures and pledged a million dollars while they tried to stave off government intervention for their licenses. When the government confiscated the licenses as part of a bankruptcy proceeding, the investors skipped paying the balance. Nextwave eventually won a lawsuit that returned the licenses.

The tawdriness of the Clintons will unfortunately get played out again for all to see. This time, it appears that the media will not go along so willingly with the Clintons in keeping these connections buried. Certainly, with the advent of the blogosphere, the peccadiloes and petty corruptions in which they engaged will no longer remain secret.

Ed Morrissey is Blog Talk Radio’s Political Director, has a Blog Talk Radio show, and blogs at Captain’s Quarters and Heading Right.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Interested
    December 20th, 2007 at 17:29
    Reply | Quote | #1

    It’s nothing new, but I would not expect Dem’s to attempt to clean up their own house.

  2. Eric
    December 27th, 2007 at 10:54
    #2
  3. Cash Loans Advance
    January 25th, 2008 at 14:33
    #3
Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.