All ex-presidents have the opportunity to pursue worthy endeavors after leaving office. Bill Clinton came up with the idea of forming a foundation that can address some of the major challenges in the world, such as world hunger. Using his enormous prestige, he was in a position to accumulate great amounts of money for this foundation. It must be remembered that neither he nor any of his family received any remuneration from this foundation. It is purely an elleemosynary enterprise.
Foundations of this sort are found among the rich, especially in this country, and they have a proud tradition. Carnegie, Ford , Rockefeller, Gates and Buffet are prominent examples. They have made the world better and are honored as great philanthropists.
Clinton had every reason to believe that his work would be similarly appreciated. However, the appreciation for his good works came to an end when his wife entered into the world of politics on her own. Politics is a vicious business and her enemies grabbed onto the fact many people from around the world had made generous contributions to this foundation. They characterize it as “pay for play” though they admittedly have no proof. Instead they grabbed a state department log that shows that many visitors to the Clinton state department were also contributors to the Clintons charity.
There are two problems with jumping to the conclusion that there is impropriety. First, there was no “pay.” The Clintons received nothing. The money went to an entity which by law is not to be used for their economic benefit. Second, what if some of the benefactors were invited to the state department as an expression of appreciation for the generosity? What is wrong with that? Every White House invites big donors on occasion. Some are rewarded with ambassadorships in appreciation for their political contributions. If Hillary received people who are donors, that should be considered to be an “appearance of good politics” rather than any “appearance of impropriety.”
