Araberlandene er kjent for å kjøpe seg innflytelse gjennom å donere millioner til universiteter og stifelser. Nå er de i ferd med å kjøpe seg en amerikansk president: Hillary Clinton.
Stiftelsen til Bill, Hillary og Chelsea Clinton har mottatt titalls millioner dollar fra utenlandske regjeringer, blant dem Saudi-Arabia, Emiratene og Qatar.
Clinton-stiftelsen var tidligere ikke åpen for å motta penger fra utenlandske givere, men opphevet forbudet for en del år siden. Pengene har strømmet inn. Interessekonfliktene er mange.
The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.
Mediene er raske til å snakke om den jødiske lobbyens innflytelse i Washington. Vil de være like opptatt av arabisk?
Beløpene er så store og mange at de reiser alvorlige spørsmål ved Clinton-familiens integritet. Hvis Hillary Clinton blir valgt vil det være spørsmål om hennes lojalitet, skriver Jennifer Rubin i Washington Post.
Bill Clinton er ikke akkurat kjent for å be om beskjedne honorarer når han holder foredrag. Clintons mangler ikke penger. Likevel har de mottatt titalls millioner fra land som opplagt venter noe til gjengjeld.
It is bad enough when Clinton takes gobs of money in speaking feesfrom Goldman Sachs, oil and chemical companies, and other titans of industry — although that, too, raises the potential for conflicts of interest. But a foreign government should never have any claim on the loyalty of a U.S. president, which is why foreign donations directly to a campaign are illegal. We cannot give her a pass simply because her entity is a “foundation,” not a PAC or campaign entity.
There is no conceivable way, I would suggest, that the foundation can keep the foreign monies if she wants to run for president. It is unseemly in the extreme and raises potential for liability down the road. But even if she were now to give all the money back, she has had use of the money in the meantime (the time value of money is something, after all). More important, her egregious judgment and untrammeled greed raise real questions about her priorities and ethics. Republicans should and will, I predict, pummel her with this. If the MSM is not entirely in her pocket, they will as well. Imagine if Jeb Bush’s education foundation took millions from Saudi Arabia. Surely there would be cries for him to withdraw from presidential pre-campaigning.
Det er ikke bare land i Midtøsten som har donert penger til stiftelsen. Også land som Australia og Tyskland har bidratt. Men det er land i Midtøsten som har vært mest generøse.
Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. . . .
United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million in 2014, and the German government—which also hadn’t previously given—contributed between $100,000 and $250,000.
A previous donor, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn’t specify how much.
The Australian government has given between $5 million and $10 million, at least part of which came in 2014. It also gave in 2013, when its donations fell in the same range.
Qatar’s government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup gave between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.
Oman, which had made a donation previously, gave an undisclosed amount in 2014. Over time, Oman has given the foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Prior to last year, its donations fell in the same range.
Hvis man mottar penger står man i takknemlighetsgjeld. Donorene venter noe til gjengjeld. Hvis hun blir president. Rubin sier de forsøker å kjøpe seg en president.
The foundation of course provides luxury travel for Hillary Clinton and her spouse, a high-visibility platform and access to mega-donors. She is beholden in a meaningful sense to its donors. No presidential candidate can justify a conflict of interest of this magnitude; it is not merely the appearance of conflict but actual conflict of interest.