The Need for Disclosure

I wrote back in October about the lack of transparency surrounding donations from corporate titans and foreign princes to Bill Clinton's foundation. My view was that it made sense for liberals to push for this disclosure sooner rather than later so that we could see if there are any stinkbombs in those records before Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. According to The New York Times there's at least one, where in exchange for a $31 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton helped a guy named Frank Giustra win some lucrative mining contracts from Kazakhstan's despotic government.

The only Hillary connection that the Times could uncover really highlights the lack of a Hillary connection here "Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York." Still, this obviously reflects quite poorly on Bill. And more to the point, it highlights the need for rigorous disclosure of this stuff. The Clintons are by no means unique in this regard -- the fundraising for the George W. Bush presidential library is super-shady. Normally, the relevant shadiness goes down during a president's lame duck phase so nobody really notices, but it's been a huge looming problem for years.

Comments

Next time Clinton says she's been vetted, remember this deal. THIS is what a political "favor" looks like.

Posted by Melanie | January 31, 2008 7:19 AM

kaboom. curtains for clinton.

Posted by JC | January 31, 2008 7:31 AM

The Clintons are slime. Always have been.

Posted by Bill | January 31, 2008 7:34 AM

Not slime, though I appreciate the "concern."

But it is pretty shady stuff, actually -- especially the part where Clinton supports this dictator to be the head of an election-monitoring commission.

And the question of whether this deal undermined Hillary's rhetoric on Kazakhstan & human rights *is* an important Hillary connection -- because loose cannons matter, when they get this big and this impossible to get rid of. It's clear that Bill is not going to be baking cookies during an HRC presidency, but no one knows exactly what he will be doing. I fear that his continuing habit of undermining HRC is a good reason to think hard about Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

Posted by Ted | January 31, 2008 7:46 AM

Two for the price of one, MY. Hillary's 35 years fighting for change are mostly through him. Still, this does not seem like a really big deal to me.

Posted by Moral Panicker | January 31, 2008 7:57 AM

This is a problem for Hillary insofar that because the donor list is secret, nobody knows if there is overlap with her donor list (my guess, is not suprisingly yes there is).

What this story does is create conflict of interest problems for her. If she is the President, will Bill undermine her foreign policy with his international begging trips?

Clinton apologists will say, get real, the money went to the poor AIDS people in Africa, but what is missing is that this story is about buying access with the former President, who shares a bed with the possibly current President. There is no way that this story will be a good one for her. Granted, it is extremely complicated and there is no sex or snub angle, so it could be somewhat minimized, but this has opened up the issue of Bill's donors to the political bloodstream.

Matt is right. It highlights the absolute need for disclosure. I expect it to come up tonight in some fashion.

And recall, this paper endorsed her last week. There really is a wall between news & opinion!

Posted by swarty | January 31, 2008 8:07 AM

Two for the price of one, MY. Hillary's 35 years fighting for change are mostly through him. Still, this does not seem like a really big deal to me.

Of course it's not a "big deal" when your politician is the one whose spouse gets multimillion contributions to his library. But for the rest of us, it's a big deal.

The Republicans are going to nominate John McCain, despised by the Republican base. The ONLY two politicians in America who could inspire the kind of hatred among otherwise apathetic core Republican voters and lose to John McCain are Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Joe Strummer | January 31, 2008 8:21 AM

What about Rezko? What about Rezko?

The Clintons talking about somebody being dirty is pretty absurd.

The argument I've heard that Hillary has already been vetted is a joke. There will be plenty of slime rising to the surface if she is nominated.

Another rumor is that Rupert Murdoch has already got a file on Bill's women since he left office. It's going to be those great 1990's all over again. Sleazy money and sleazy women.

Posted by Pug | January 31, 2008 8:43 AM

Stories like these underscore why campaign finance reform (and, ultimately, public financing of political campaigns) is a liberal policy goal. Big Money is and always will be a contaminant of good government. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that the current system is somehow corrupted by bad actors like the Clintons. The system as constituted exists because America is virtually a plutocratic oligarchy. Bill Clinton knows how power is achieved and maintained in this system.

The problem with transparency is that there's simply too many of these stories for the public to digest. We will exhaust ourselves with cynicism before we'll properly assess the demerits. Any worthwhile reform must spring from our outrage but it's unlikely the right will be the provenace of reform. If you're a liberal, you're caught in the paradox of achieving enough power to undermine corrupt power.

Posted by walt | January 31, 2008 8:48 AM

And of course, the donations of Saudi sheiks to Mr. Clintons' library will be ignored by Don Williams in favor of invoking Hiam Saban as the bete noir of the Clinton campaign.

Posted by SLC | January 31, 2008 9:03 AM

Once again, dude: H-A-I-M.

Posted by James Gary | January 31, 2008 9:20 AM

I'm glad someone is finally doing some digging into the Clintons' last 7 years. Saying they've been "vetted" is beyond a joke. How many Giustras are out there lurking in the wings. You know the GOP will sniff them out. This whole thing makes "that slumlord Rezko" a complete joke. Hillary should have known better than to go there. Hopefully this is not coming out to late to prevent a major mistake by the Democrats.

Posted by Jane | January 31, 2008 9:36 AM

I've wondered why no bloggers have mentioned the fact that the "vetted" claim stemmed entirely from the period before Bill Clinton left office. The Marc Rich pardon got traction at the time, but it didn't matter much since he was leaving office. Nobody has ever cared much about the Clintons' finances since then. Until now, when they want back in the White house.

Posted by Helter | January 31, 2008 9:47 AM

Here's a weird idea: how about if ALL nonprofits were required to list the names and amounts of ALL contributors who gave over, say, $5000 over the course of a year.

It would solve a host of problems in one fell swoop.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 31, 2008 9:57 AM

Bill is supposed to be the "Goodwill Ambassador" that Hillary wants to send around the world. The core of this story is the implication that Bill Clinton would be running an unaccountable, shadow government that may be working against US foreign policy interests. We don't know for sure where this particular story will lead -- but it is sure is a strong clue that points to what scandals may lie ahead. The Clintons are a KNOWN bad risk -- not merely a role of the dice.

Posted by donna L. | January 31, 2008 10:01 AM

And do not forget to focus on what the "deal" was about -- URANIUM. This brings to mind proliferation of bombs and nuclear power. Just what we need more of. AL GORE -- YOU NEED TO SPEAK UP NOW!

Posted by donna L. | January 31, 2008 10:05 AM

$31 Million with the promise of another $100 coming, total = $131 Million, for helping the head of an upstart mining company to get a deal mining uranium in a country where a bloodthirsty dictator rules with an iron fist. The reason, here, is obviously to inflate donations to look like Clinton's foundation is doing better than it is. That $100 million from '07 is the bulk of his donations received that whole year! I don't know if specific laws were broken here, but it sure looks bad.

Posted by onceler | January 31, 2008 10:35 AM

who does clinton think he is taking that poor dicatators $100 million to give to charity. god forbid that all that dirty money go to help causes like AIDS prevention, poverty, and hunger. purely on principle, bill clinton should quit going around raising huge sums of money to help people and just go play golf. the nerve of that guy!

Posted by english teacher | January 31, 2008 10:45 AM

Dear English Teacher,

Not to be snarky, but you seem to be missing the point. Assuming Hillary becomes President, Bill will be under no constitutional oaths whatsoever. He is not disclosing who is donating to his foundation. Therefore, as his wife is the President, there is an inherent conflict of interest situation hanging over their heads.

I'm not saying it would happen, but it leaves the impression that Bill could be swanning off and there would be the illusion that he is selling access not only to a former President, but to a current one. I will promise you that charge will be made if any stories like this come up. And they will.

I have no doubt the Clinton Initiative is doing good works. But that does not excuse them from transparency. They need to get out in front of this before she is the nominee or it will certainly cause trouble in the general.

The fact that this story is out today will not reflect well on Hillary, even if she is only tangentially involved.

We passed the 22nd Amendment in 1951 as a result of the Roosevelt administration. Yes, I know Hillary is not Bill, so TECHNICALLY she is in the clear, but the thrust of that amendment is to thwart dynastic ruling in this country. The structure of power and access to power in our country guarantee that these sorts of issues will be a constant in a Clinton II administration.

That, more than any other reason is why I do not support her for President.

Posted by swarty | January 31, 2008 11:02 AM

If Hillary wants to claim she's so indispensable and close to Bill clinton that being first lady qualifies her for being President, then she's likely so close and indispensable to Bill Clinton that she knew about this too.

Posted by Soullite | January 31, 2008 11:25 AM

Maybe President Hillary will talk with the Iranians if they donate $100 million to Sen. Clay Davis' . . . I mean Bill's library.

(Anyone know how to do the html for strikethroughs in the comments field?)

Posted by ben | January 31, 2008 11:55 AM

Newsweek has a piece on this guy and some other Clinton associates this week:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/105650

Posted by Mike P | January 31, 2008 12:00 PM

Still, this obviously reflects quite poorly on Bill.

Why? What is the ethical issue here for Bill Clinton?

Would it look better if he personally pocketed the $31 million himself as a business consultant, the way some former presidents have done? It's a non-profit foundation, after all, don't they, like, fund AIDS research and such? Where's the foul?

Yeah, the government over there is pretty despotic, but so is China's. I don't see many respectable people suggesting we don't do business with Beijing. Does it contravene US law or something to do business deals with Kazakhstan? And nuclear energy is legal, after all. And we've even got quite a few of those power plants here in the states (though not enough of them for Matt's taste, if I recall correctly). So again, what's the harm here? I've got no problem with more robust disclosure requirements. Let's all write our congressmen.

Posted by Jasper | January 31, 2008 12:28 PM

Supporting the government of Kazakhstan on human rights is a serious ethical problem for Bill Clinton. This government is known for its extremely strong executive branch, which is considered responsible both for keeping the current adminstration in power since the '90s (they won the last election with 91% of the vote), and for stories of cruel and unusual punishments (such as of political prisoners executed by being boiled alive).

Unfortunately, I do not believe this will translate to a political problem for the Clinton campaign. Obama is not the type to dishonestly spin this story into an accusation of Hillary Clinton supporting human rights abuses, so I expect that only international policy wonks will even remember the story two weeks from now.

Posted by Steven the all-knowing | January 31, 2008 12:32 PM

Harry Truman was living on his Army pension of about $112/month when he left the White House. I saw the series on the Presidential Libraries that C-Span just ran and I think the passed the Former Presidents Act basically to because Truman was such a stubborn SOB that he was actually going to live on that pension and America in 1958 didn't think that was right. Herbert Hoover, who was alive and well off at the time, was going to refuse his pension but ultimately accepted it because he thought refusing his own pension would embarrass Truman.

If you can pull the C-Span special on Harry Truman's library there is some choice footage of Truman going on and on about how it would be disgusting for anybody ever to use the office of the Presidency to make a buck after they left office. Brian Lamb has some discussion of the history of former Presidents making money by giving speeches and I believe it started with Gerald Ford. Lamb discusses the $40 million that Bill Clinton has made in speeches since he left office.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 31, 2008 12:39 PM

Why is everybody from Matt on down to English Teacher (who either can't be bothered to read the article, or can't read well enought to comprehend that the donation came from the businessman, NOT the dictator), not recognizing that this is the typical NYT hatchet-job....?
You know, just like that idiotic front-pager on how often the Clintons fuck....?
Nowhere in the article is there any evidence of a quid pro quo.
And that's for Bill and his foundation, never mind Hillary.
It's all insinuations and vast conspiracies hinted at based on the timing of donations, with the typical misleading headline.
Have you idiots forgotten that this is the "great" newspaper that brought us Whitewater, a complete falsehood...?
You all rememeber Whitewater, right...? The investigation that was so important it lasted 7 years and was budgeted for $70 million (10x the 9/11 commision's budget) and finally came to the earth-shatteringly brilliant conclusion that men like to get blowjobs, but may lie about it in polite company...? All brought to you courtesy of the Grey Lady, natch.

This is gotcha journalism without the "gotcha", just like those John Solomon articles in the Washington Post about Edwards' home sale, and supposed "irregularities".

This is a textbook example of how a "controversy" get's created out of nothng and injected into the mainstream and becomes part of the narrative.

You'd think a sophisticated young blogger like Matt would grok to this fairly quickly.

Isn't anyone suspicious about how this story dovetails SO perfectly with all the right-wing RNC talking points about "The Clintons"...?

With Liberals like Matt & his commenters swallowing this swill hook, line & sinker, get ready for President McCain, who even Pat Buchanan said "has no policy except for more taxes, more illegal immigration, and more wars..."

Posted by steveconga | January 31, 2008 1:40 PM

During the 1990's Bill Clinton accepted multiple millions of dollars from individuals and organizations fronting for the Chinese intelligence bureau and military. We soon had highly critical rocket navigation and other sensitive technology being sent to China. Investigations into foreign spying at our national labs was quashed.

Do I question Mr. Clinton's integrity - you bet. When Hillary Clinton started having similar issues with unaccountable campaign contributions from Chinese contributors she brought the same questions to mind. His freewheeling fund raising is too slimy to allow near the White House again.

Posted by in_awe | January 31, 2008 2:25 PM

Please...if you Clinton supporters can't see the main issue here you really have drunk too much Kool Aid.

HRC is basing her campaign on 35 years of high level experience...day one and all that.

She claims she will use the talents of Bill extensively to salve to world wounds.

Bill still has a security clearance given to ex-Presidents. Bill will not disclose his donation list. Bill will not be under an office oath if she is elected, yet will have free run of the WH as a spouse, same clearance level as now, etc. Bill is working deals that COULD affect our nations own foreign policy.

Either HRC has to completely seperate herself from him and HIS experience, which whittles HER experience down to 1 1/2 terms in the Senate...

OR

She has to accept HIS experience warts and all.

It's her choice...no, it's our choice. Do we really want to go back to all the drama we had back then? Do we not have very viable alternatives?

Seems to me we do.

Posted by G Davis | January 31, 2008 4:39 PM

Bill still has a security clearance given to ex-Presidents.

So. Your point is?

Bill will not disclose his donation list.

I'm not sure what I think of this, but if the money is going for good causes, I don't see a big problem. Anyway, it seems like this is a matter more for the Congress. I've always been a big fan of strong disclosure requirements, so, let's pass a law. But I'm not sure what bearing it has on a potential Clinton restoration one way or another.

Bill will not be under an office oath if she is elected...

The same could be said for Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan. Again, what's your point? Are you claiming he'd use his influence to work against the country's interests? It seems to me that, whatever his personal foibles while in office, he unwaveringly was working hard to serve his country.

Bill is working deals that COULD affect our nations own foreign policy.

Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush both have extensive foreign dealings. Again, I have no problems with Bill Clinton's, because I believe he's proven beyond any doubt that he's working for the good of America, and the planet.

She has to accept HIS experience warts and all.

Hillary can do as she pleases. This is really a matter of what the voters have to accept. I predict they'll gladly accept Hillary Clinton, because Bill's return to the White House is a huge bonus. I mean, it would just be terrible to have our president married to one of the most skilled diplomats and knowledgable policy experts on the planet.

Do we really want to go back to all the drama we had back then?

Compared to today's problems (disastrous war; massive corruption; criminally negligent disaster relief policies; precipitous drop in international prestige and soft power; loss of fiscal health; terrible economy; erosion of civil rights; pariah status on environmental issues, etc.,), many voters will eagerly run back to the "drama" of the nineties (a wonderful mixture of peace, booming prosperity, and oral sex).

Posted by Jasper | January 31, 2008 7:43 PM

Jasper...pick for nits all you like by line dissecting other's thoughts...taken in it's entirety, my point is this will be a problem for HRC so long as she insists she is tied at the hip with Bill so we are electing two for one.

If we are to accept the good of Bill, we also have to accept the bad. When called on this she indignantly says *he's not here, I am*, then turns around and stumps on the wonderful 90's, Bill will be back, etc.

In the general, the Reps will rip her to shreds over questionable, not verifiable stuff like Matt's post. They will dig into every corner of his foundation activities and drop enough on the public to swiftboat the both of them into oblivion.

When governing, I find it disconcerting that Bill will have no checks or balances...on anything he does. Maybe he does hold country over self, has deep respect for the office, but from our past experience with him many will raise an eyebrow at least.

But go on spinning...by all means put candidate over party, party over country. She and her followers learned well from the *vast right wing conspiracy*, and that will be hers and your answer to anyone that questions them.

Posted by G Davis | January 31, 2008 7:57 PM

By the way, to top it all off, it would appear at least that this Giustra fellow is a pretty solid and decent human being. Truly self-made man (father was a nickel miner). Astute businessman. Raised tons of dough for charity, including Tsunami victims:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=1227e085-a744-4f9e-aef8-cf646d92f72f

Not exactly a slum lord.

Posted by Jasper | January 31, 2008 8:07 PM

But go on spinning...by all means put candidate over party, party over country.

G. Davis: The arrogance and smugness of your words are breathtaking, but unfortunately are not uncommon among Obama partisans. Did it ever occur to you that it's precisely because I believe electing Hillary Clinton is in our country's best interest that I'm voting for her on Tuesday? No, apparently it is only Obama supporters who want good things for America. I take it you are an Obama supporter, right? Is it fair for me to characterize your support for him as putting his candidacy over the interests of party and country?

If we are to accept the good of Bill, we also have to accept the bad.

I do "accept the bad." To me choosing a candidate is an exercise -- like most choices -- in cost benefit analysis. I believe Clinton is the best choice. I think her marriage to Bill Clinton reinforces that choice.

In the general, the Reps will rip her to shreds over questionable, not verifiable stuff like Matt's post.

Right. And they'll bow down and worship Obama.

When governing, I find it disconcerting that Bill will have no checks or balances...on anything he does.

I think that's nonsense. He's not a fool. We see this even in the campaign: his conduct gets sharply criticized, and, lo and behold, he's now on his best behavior. And anyway, what actions are you fearing Bill might undertake that need to be "checked?" Perhaps he'll pull a nutty and get the Israelis and Palestinians to do a deal? Maybe he'll get the pharmaceutical companies to cough up more cash for AIDS or orphan drug research? Perhaps he'll get all crazy and advance the cause of the environment? Sure sounds terrible to me.

Posted by Jasper | January 31, 2008 8:27 PM

Matt finally picks up on something I sent him in an email - although he probably got it first from somewhere else. He might even have actually read the NYT piece.

This case demonstrates once again the utter corruption of the Clintons.

THAT'S the "connection" with Hillary, Matt - even if Bill's deal was against something Hillary was touting at the time - which wouldn't mean anything if Hillary basically didn't give a rat's ass about the issue.

"this Giustra fellow is a pretty solid and decent human being."

Yeah, right...

"A spokesman for Mr. Clinton said the former president knew that Mr. Giustra had mining interests in Kazakhstan but was unaware of “any particular efforts” and did nothing to help. Mr. Giustra said he was there as an “observer only” and there was “no discussion” of the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev or Mr. Clinton.

But Moukhtar Dzhakishev, president of Kazatomprom, said in an interview that Mr. Giustra did discuss it, directly with the Kazakh president, and that his friendship with Mr. Clinton “of course made an impression.”

Neil MacDonald, the chief executive of a Canadian merchant bank that specializes in mining deals, said Mr. Giustra’s financial success was partly due to a “fantastic network” crowned by Mr. Clinton. “That’s a very solid relationship for him,” Mr. MacDonald said. “I’m sure it’s very much a two-way relationship because that’s the way Frank operates.”

Mr. Clinton’s Kazakhstan visit, the only one of his post-presidency, appears to have been arranged hastily. The United States Embassy got last-minute notice that the president would be making “a private visit,” said a State Department official, who said he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The publicly stated reason for the visit was to announce a Clinton Foundation agreement that enabled the government to buy discounted AIDS drugs. But during a news conference, Mr. Clinton wandered into delicate territory by commending Mr. Nazarbayev for “opening up the social and political life of your country.”

But Robert Herman, who worked for the State Department in the Clinton administration and is now at Freedom House, a human rights group, said the former president’s statement amounted to an endorsement of Kazakhstan’s readiness to lead the group, a position he called “patently absurd.”

“He was either going off his brief or he was sadly mistaken,” Mr. Herman said. “There was nothing in the record to suggest that they really wanted to move forward on democratic reform.”

Indeed, in December 2005, Mr. Nazarbayev won another election, which the security organization itself said was marred by an “atmosphere of intimidation” and “ballot-box stuffing.”

After Mr. Nazarbayev won with 91 percent of the vote, Mr. Clinton sent his congratulations. “Recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the most important rewards in life,” Mr. Clinton wrote in a letter released by the Kazakh embassy. Last September, just weeks after Kazakhstan held an election that once again failed to meet international standards, Mr. Clinton honored Mr. Nazarbayev by inviting him to his annual philanthropic conference.

Longtime market watchers were confounded. Kazatomprom’s choice of UrAsia was a “mystery,” said Gene Clark, the chief executive of Trade Tech, a uranium industry newsletter.

“UrAsia was able to jump-start the whole process somehow,” Mr. Clark said. The company became a “major uranium producer when it didn’t even exist before.

In February 2007, a company called Uranium One agreed to pay $3.1 billion to acquire UrAsia. Mr. Giustra, a director and major shareholder in UrAsia, would be paid $7.05 per share for a company that just two years earlier was trading at 10 cents per share.

That same month, Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home. Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan’s intention — not publicly known at the time — to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology.

Nearly a year earlier, Mr. Clinton had advised Dubai on how to handle the political furor after one of that nation’s companies attempted to take over several American ports. Mrs. Clinton was among those on Capitol Hill who raised the national security concerns that helped kill the deal.

Mr. Clinton “said this was very important for America,” said Mr. Dzhakishev, who added that Mr. Giustra was present at Mr. Clinton’s home.

Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton’s home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.

“You are correct that I asked the president to meet with the head of Kazatomprom,” Mr. Giustra said. “Mr. Dzhakishev asked me in February 2007 to set up a meeting with former President Clinton to discuss the future of the nuclear energy industry.” Mr. Giustra said the meeting “escaped my memory until you raised it.”

Yeah, right...

Bottom line: this guy does deals by using a former US President to pressure corrupt governments to sell him deals at bargain prices.

I see no difference between him and Adnan Kashoggi.

How many hookers did he provide Clinton while they were overseas? That would have been a Kashoggi gambit...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 1, 2008 12:54 AM

This case demonstrates once again the utter corruption of the Clintons.

Yup. Cannily using business contacts to generate millions to help poor countries and fund medical research is definitely my idea of corruption.

Posted by Jasper | February 1, 2008 11:28 AM