Matthew Yglesias: Who's giving money to Bill Clinton?

[babylonsister]

Who's giving money to Bill Clinton?


The former president should disclose his foundation's backers before his wife goes up for election.
By Matthew Yglesias
October 4, 2007


When Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton is asked on the campaign trail what her husband would do in the unprecedented role of "first laddy," she suggests that he'd serve as a kind of goodwill ambassador to the world.

The answer is decent, but the question is strange because he already has a demanding job: He's the head of the William J. Clinton Foundation, which tries to make a serious dent in such problems as climate change, HIV/AIDS and Third World poverty. And he shows no signs of wanting to quit.

Typically, ex-presidents make money on the lecture circuit while finishing the fundraising for their presidential libraries. In fact, they can start the fundraising in office, without being subject to the usual campaign finance rules. President Bush, for example, is busying himself raising half a billion dollars for his post-presidency, with, no doubt, much of that coming from individuals interested in influencing public policy. Not only can this money be collected in unlimited sums, there's no disclosure of who is doing the giving.

To close this wildly inappropriate loophole, Hillary Clinton is sponsoring a bill that would mandate disclosure of financial contributions made to sitting presidents' presidential libraries. It's a good idea. Her husband, in turn, has done her one better by promising that, should she become president and her bill be passed into law, he would voluntarily comply with the law's disclosure rules. After all, donors seeking to curry favor with the president could simply spread cash to the foundation controlled by her spouse.

So far so good, except for one thing.

Disclosing who's contributing to Bill Clinton's foundation after his wife wins the election would be about four years too late. The voters ought to have this information before the election, when it could still make a difference. Indeed, we really ought to find out who his donors are before the nomination is settled.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-yglesias4oct04,0,6253673.story?coll=la-opinion-center

[TheDebbieDee]

1. President Clinton already admitted

in a TV interview with KO last week that to disclose the names of contributors to his foundation might be profoundly embarrassing to the repuke party as many of his contributors are prominent republicans!

[babylonsister]

2. Than that would be even better! I think Yglesias has a point. nt

[Adelante]

3. He shouldn't have to, I don't think

We have candidates with foundations for which they don't report where the money comes from, why should a candidate's spouse have to do it?