Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
Because of the potential to gain favour as a result of massive donations. The donors get the cache of donation to charity as opposed to a candidate, and the Clinton Foundation does more and as a result increases the legacy of its namesakes. And I'm sorry, if someone has donated a cool million or more to your foundation, you're going to have a little more time for them, that's human nature. Whether you're explicitly making policy to favour them is another story.
No one has a problem questioning Koch money's potential to influence. So why not this too?
One funds a campaign, the other funds legacy. Both have value.
|
I don't think anyone thinks that the foundation doesn't have the potential to influence the Clinton's, as does every business partner or potential partner that Trump has as well as every lobbyist in Washington with every politician.
At least the foundation doesn't benefit the Clinton's, it's financials are completely open, it files taxes, in the over all scheme of things compared to campaign finance or Trumps business dealings it's pure as the driven snow!!