“Pay for Play” vs. Partnerships of Purpose?

As a past contributor to the Clinton Foundation as well as the HRC 2016 campaign, recent news stories about “pay for play” have been a bit like getting a punch to the gut after being slapped in the face. As the news reports and stories (often times it’s been hard to tell the difference between a news report and a story these days) began to surface during this election cycle, I have to admit to being confused and a bit overwhelmed with information that seemed to lack clarity in the story line or factual evidence.

In the absence of clarity and context, I often turn to sources I’ve found trustworthy in the past. The POTUS channel programs on Sirius XM (Michael Smerconish, Julie Mason, Steele and Unger) are staples in my civics and political education. Michael Arnovitz is my favorite Facebook voice of reason as he promotes critical thinking and fact checking. Politico, Politifact, BBC, NPR, and The Economist are my favorite written sources for news. My guilty pleasure used to be The Daily Show and The Colbert Report where both humor and a surprisingly interesting mix of real information came together so nicely as entertainment.

This month I’m finding some of my previously trusted sources have gone down a path causing me almost as much concern about journalism as the Trump candidacy has frightened me about the state of our electorate. In both politics and journalism I see a disturbing trend of repeating catchy headlines, inciting fear and dishing dirt. In journalism there is an absence of independent fact checking before repeating some new “hot” story. In politics its difficult to imagine any informed citizen unaware of the viscous nature of campaign rhetoric and untruthfulness in this 2016 cycle.

The “pay for play” reports, stories and talk show segments could become one of the most destructive developments of this election cycle.

The Clintons are being pressured to shut down or walk away from the Clinton Foundation because of the appearance of impropriety. The “impropriety” stems from meetings Secretary Clinton had with a number of Clinton Foundation donors during her tenure as Secretary of State. Well meaning and intelligent people are speaking out about a conflict of interest and the vulnerability HRC leaves herself open to as the wife of The Clinton Foundation founder.

To understand this required some independent fact checking and research of my own. In what way we’re these meetings inappropriate? How were the interests of our country impacted? How did the Clintons personally benefit?

First, what is The Clinton Foundation?

Improved the lives of 430 million people in more than 180 countries

Creating Partnerships of Purpose

We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for girls and women, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change.

Examples:

• 11.5 million people in 70 countries have access to HIV/AIDS medication
• 85 million people in the US reached through strategic health partnerships
• 31,000 American schools providing healthier food to fight childhood obesity.
• Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania benefitting from climate smart agriculture training, higher yields, and greater market access.
• 33,500 tons of greenhouse gas emissions reduced in the US.

What portion of the Clinton’s wealth comes from the Clinton Foundation?

The Clinton Foundation is not a source of income or wealth for either Bill or Hillary. Neither of them has drawn a salary from the charity Bill founded when he retired from the presidency. Clinton income is well documented in publicly available tax returns released for every year since 1977! They are are easy to find and read on the web. Speaking fees have been the significant sources of their income. Bill alone has earned at least $105 million in speaking fees since leaving office.

The Clintons have given quite generously of their speaking fees and proceeds from book sales to the Clinton Foundation. That’s right… they’ve given millions to the foundation and haven’t drawn a dime in salary despite Bill’s considerable investment in time and effort founding and building the charity. He uses his name, influence, leadership and a vast network of global relationships to form partnerships.

OK, so the work of the charity is beyond reproach, and the Clintons give money and time to it rather than benefiting from it. But how well are those charitable donations used?

Is there some secret, sideways benefit scheme?

Charity Watch is a well respected source for evaluating the effectiveness of charitable organizations. They are fiercely independent and use stringent criteria. A wealth of detailed information is available about each charity they rate, including the charity we commonly refer to as the Clinton Foundation.

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has an A rating with Charity Watch

I am not a wealthy person by any stretch of the imagination, but I can give to this charity as confidently as I can to my church, The American Red Cross, KIVA, UNICEF, or Doctors Without Borders.

What is “Pay for Play?

Pay to play, sometimes pay for play, is a phrase used for a variety of situations in which money is exchanged for services or the privilege to engage in certain activities. The common denominator of all forms of pay to play is that one must pay to “get in the game,” with the sports analogy frequently arising.

In this case, the accusation is that donors had special access to Secretary Clinton because they were donors. Assuming any donors were granted time with the Secretary because of their donations, did that meeting either work against the interests of our country or benefit the Clintons in some way?

Most prominently cited in the news stories was a visit with Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. He was a donor to the Clinton charity. He is widely known as a philanthropist, so that fact shouldn’t surprise anyone. Many wealthy and connected people throughout the world give to this charity.

Yunus is most recognized for his work with micro banks. These banks give the poorest members in developing countries without the means of traditional qualifications a way to find low cost loans to start businesses and improve their lives. I read the book. He’s a fascinating man.

What was left out of this story about Yunus getting a meeting with Secretary Clinton is the fact that she had a relationship with Yunus pre-dating her time in public office. Since Yunus already had an established relationship with Secretary Clinton there would be no need for charitable contributions to pave his way into a meeting. What’s more, what Secretary of State wouldn’t want to meet with a Nobel Peace Prize winner well known for doing work to elevate the poor in developing countries they visit and negotiate with?

Furthermore, what Secretary of State hasn’t met with prominent business men, wealthy philanthropists, leaders and change agents from around the globe. This is part of the business of the State Department. Secretaries of State before and after HRC do the same. A network of relationships is both a byproduct and a necessity for successful international diplomacy. The depth and breadth of the Clinton network of relationships attests to the success of past leadership as well as a level of respect and mutual cooperation that gets things done. This is a strength rather than a liability.

None of the news reports I have found provides any examples of inappropriate decisions or actions taken by Secretary Clinton following any of these meetings. In fact many of them specifically stated there was no evidence of illegal or inappropriate actions resulting from meetings with donors. The Clintons do not benefit from the charity bearing their name so any overlap in relationships does not trouble me. It doesn’t even rise to the level of “politics as usual”.

There is no wrong-doing, only the poor “optics” making HRC vulnerable to suspicions raised by those with an axe to grind, deep-seated bias or an addiction to sensational news “stories”.

Why not just shut down the foundation altogether and eliminate the controversy?

Should the foundation shut down, people will die. More than half of the HIV/AIDS drugs in the world are sourced through the Clinton Foundation. The work of the foundation benefits American citizens, the poor in developing nations, and our global environment.

Have we become so shallow and distrusting a citizenry to insist on the shutting down of this A rated and globally renowned charitable organization for the sole purpose of making the “optics” better?

I will be personally disappointed if the Clintons give in to the pressure of this unfair assessment of work they should be applauded for. The Clintons should be praised for their work rather than taken to task by those who can’t identify any actual impropriety. The foundation’s work has built on the greatest strengths this duo brings to the world. Their extensive network of world leaders, entrepreneurs, philanthropists and world change agents is the key ingredient bringing together the people and resources needed to solve large and difficult problems.

As Americans we should take pride in their charitable achievements regardless of which side of the aisle our political sensibilities lean.

The world could use more of these “Partnerships of Purpose”. Let’s not allow fear, distrust, rumors, and old fashioned mud-slinging bring a premature end to such a noble cause benefitting millions of people around the globe.