The New American Politics thread

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

I've made it pretty clear that I'm uncomfortable with a foundation tied to an active nominee for president taking money from foreign governments.

Let's say Hillary Clinton was heavily involved with the Red Cross. They get most of their donations from abroad.

Would that make you uncomfortable?

Money buys favour in the political system of the United States, and it's not like this is something new.

You keep failing to explain what this has to do with the Clinton foundation.

What do you think is a more effective way of influencing her policies, giving money to a charity, or giving money to her campaign? Or is it somehow worse if the money is given to a charity, instead of her political campaign?

It's not like foreign nations have real limits on donations to US campaigns. All they need is a company with offices in the US to funnel the money through.

Plus I really fail to see what the danger is. Do people seriously think US foreign policy can be bought with the kind of petty cash the foundation handles? Anything US government related is billions of dollars of business, we're talking a completely different ballgame there.

Obviously this is something that is not going to be provable, just like it isn't for Lobby money.

Not true. It's often not at all hard to connect the dots between specific donations and specific laws. It's hard to prove corruption in the legal sense, but generally the connections are quite easy to find, and has been done numerous times.

Plus let's consider her options. Would you want her to shut down the Clinton foundation to make you feel better? Let's remember that regardless of where the foundation gets money, it's proven to do some genuinely good work, and most of their fundraising is based on Bills personal charisma and their personal connections, so shutting down the foundation would probably not result in the same money just going to another charity.

Or let's pretend that the foundation had never existed. That she had not spent two decades helping build up a sizable, cost-effective charity.

Would that really make you think more of her as a person?

These are the kinds of questions that make me see your view as completely irrational.

I don't see how any of your worries are made worse by the Clinton foundation existing.

[nik-]

If the situation was incredibly different would I think of it differently?

Yeah, probably.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

If the situation was incredibly different would I think of it differently?

Yeah, probably.

Please answer the actual questions and stop with the stupid one-liners.

WHY would it be in your opinion completely different if the Clinton foundation did not exist?

And WHY does the existence of the the Clinton foundation in your opinion make her seem more corrupt?

You keep posting and posting and saying absolutely nothing except "I don't like how it makes me feel".

[nik-]

Are you looking for proof? I already told you I don't have any.

I'm not sure what your end game is here. How about you just tell me what you want me to post, so I can post that and we can stop this boring roundabout.

I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MONEY IN POLITICS.

I CONSIDER MONEY TO A FAMILY FOUNDATION TO BE MONEY IN POLITICS.

You are fine with it, so that's fabulous for you.

The Red Cross is not a family foundation. If you can't see the difference, we're wasting our time talking.

[driveway]

Why do you consider money to a family foundation to be the same thing as money in politics?

[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.

[afc wimbledon]

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!!

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

I CONSIDER MONEY TO A FAMILY FOUNDATION TO BE MONEY IN POLITICS.

I get that part, but that doesn't really explain anything, because it's not like there's no money in politics otherwise.

The Clinton presidential campaign has at this point raised and/or spent close to $800M. All that money is spent directly to influence the direction of US politics and/or to buy future influence with Hillary and/or the Democrats.

The Clinton foundation has a yearly budget of just a fraction of that, and all that money could just as well have been donated to the campaign, if the purpose of the donators was simply to buy influence.

So why does the foundation bother you so much?

The Red Cross is not a family foundation. If you can't see the difference, we're wasting our time talking.

Does the charity work she has done matter to you at all?

[Itse]

This was a pretty good answer to the Trump Skittles ad. (It goes a overboard with the rhetorics, but the argument itself is perfectly solid.)

NSFW, language.

NSFW!

[nik-]

All money in politics bothers me. I think what bothers me extra about the foundation is the foreign governments being free to give money without being subject to the laws prohibiting it in elections. Particularly the Saudis, whose relationship with Obama has soured and which I doubt would continue to be so under Clinton, potentially as a result of an increased amicability in the relationship as a result of massive support to the Foundation.

No one is expecting the US to abandon them, but a continuing coolness in the relationship, with the resulting extra scrutiny, would have been preferred.

These are the types of scenarios where the foundation makes me uncomfortable.

The charity work itself I have no problem with, but that doesn't erase the potential of value being assigned to donations just because it's a good cause.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Are you looking for proof? I already told you I don't have any.

I'm not sure what your end game is here. How about you just tell me what you want me to post, so I can post that and we can stop this boring roundabout.

I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MONEY IN POLITICS.

I CONSIDER MONEY TO A FAMILY FOUNDATION TO BE MONEY IN POLITICS.

You are fine with it, so that's fabulous for you.

The Red Cross is not a family foundation. If you can't see the difference, we're wasting our time talking.

I'm trying to work out who, in your world view, could actually run for high office, no business person clearly could be considered above influence, no one involved in a union or a charity, I'm clearly susceptible to influence, I'm on the board of an old persons home, clearly a donation to the home is going to please me.

Is there anyone in Washington or Ottawa that doesn't have some involvement in charity work or on various boards of non profits or the like?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

All money in politics bothers me. I think what bothers me extra about the foundation is the foreign governments being free to give money without being subject to the laws prohibiting it in elections. Particularly the Saudis, whose relationship with Obama has soured and which I doubt would continue to be so under Clinton, potentially as a result of an increased amicability in the relationship as a result of massive support to the Foundation.

No one is expecting the US to abandon them, but a continuing coolness in the relationship, with the resulting extra scrutiny, would have been preferred.

These are the types of scenarios where the foundation makes me uncomfortable.

The charity work itself I have no problem with, but that doesn't erase the potential of value being assigned to donations just because it's a good cause.

The purpose of lobbyists is get around campiagn finance law, if you don't think the Saudis, the Israelis and the Chinese arnt dropping millions into campaigns via various fronts your sadly naive.

[nik-]

Just because it's happening doesn't mean a person shouldn't be concerned about another potential channel for it though.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Just because it's happening doesn't mean a person shouldn't be concerned about another potential channel for it though.

To be honest that's like worrying about patients on a leukaemia ward getting zits.

[nik-]

Actually it's like worrying that the patients in the leukemia ward's leukemia gets worse.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

All money in politics bothers me. I think what bothers me extra about the foundation is the foreign governments being free to give money without being subject to the laws prohibiting it in elections. Particularly the Saudis, whose relationship with Obama has soured and which I doubt would continue to be so under Clinton, potentially as a result of an increased amicability in the relationship as a result of massive support to the Foundation.

Okay, this was more the kind of answer I was looking for, thanks.

Personally, I just don't see these kinds of fears as realistic.

The Saudis for example could easily donate money to the Clinton campaign through the numerous US companies they own, so again I don't see how the foundation makes any difference in terms of buying influence.

Plus it's worth noting that if the Saudis DID suddenly start to donate actually vasts sums of money to the foundation, that would be public knowledge and easily noticed by all the people trying to dig up dirt on the Clintons. (Unlike money funneled to superpacs for example.)

The charity work itself I have no problem with, but that doesn't erase the potential of value being assigned to donations just because it's a good cause.

Not having a problem is different from appreciating it or giving it value.

Do you appreciate her more knowing that she has done a lot of charity work? Or does your discomfort with the foundation completely negate the value of the work that's being done?

I mean, you seem to view the existence of the foundation as a purely negative thing. For me it's just impossible to ignore the good that's being done, even if I did share your worries about buying influence through the foundation (which again I don't because I don't think it makes a real difference).

I also think it's a bit extremely cynical to think that it makes a huge difference to the Clintons whether or not someone donates to cause they care about through their own foundation or through some other means. The whole "it builds their legacy" argument doesn't even hold much water, as the foundation has been mostly a drag on their public image for years now.

(For the record: I'm guessing Hillary Clinton probably is rather corrupt. I just don't think it has anything really to do with the foundation, or that she's more corrupt than your average candidate.)

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Actually it's like worrying that the patients in the leukemia ward's leukemia gets worse.

No because donations to the foundation do not benefit the Clinton's in any way shape or form other than possibly giving them a warm feeling inside.
Business deals or campaign finance donations are a direct financial benefit to the politician involved, the two things arnt even close to equivalent.

[driveway]

Nik, I get your concern, but I think the ideal case you seek may be simply impossible to achieve.

For example, if a politician is well known for favoring a particular policy-say low taxes-a person could volunteer for, donate to, advocate for, or publicize foundations, think-tanks, causes, and so forth which also favour this policy position but have no ties at all to a candidate. This is pretty much exactly the same type of influence buying you worry is possible through the foundation.

I get that the proximity of the Clinton Foundation to the Clintons is somewhat different and the idea of legacy is important, but I think it's simply impossible to remove this type of influence or even seriously mitigate it.

In fact, I would argue that something like the Clinton Foundation would be the best possible solution to this problem.

Essentially, if your concern that it is possible to influence Hillary through the Foundation is well-founded, what she and Bill have done is say "you want to try to get to us? Sure, you can try, here is a very well-run, above-board charity, which works around the globe for humanitarian causes we believe in. Put your money there and perhaps it'll get you something."

Personally I would much, much rather something like this, where there is some transparency and obvious humanitarian benefit to the money being spent in an attempt to influence powerful people, than an alternative where the money which will be poured into the system is harder to follow.

The only real alternative is a political class who are so wealthy as to be able to almost completely cut themselves off from the rest of the economy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by driveway

Personally I would much, much rather something like this, where there is some transparency and obvious humanitarian benefit to the money being spent in an attempt to influence powerful people, than an alternative where the money which will be poured into the system is harder to follow.

The only real alternative is a political class who are so wealthy as to be able to almost completely cut themselves off from the rest of the economy.

Clinton does have superpacs. They don't seem to get as much scrutiny as the foundation because they aren't public. The problem with the foundation attacks is that it's portrayed as their personal slush fund and not a charity that does measurable good.

I love your last point because we have a independently wealthy person running on the other side and he appears to be using his foundation to settle law suits and still takes money from whoever gives it to him. Being wealthy increases conflict of interest. We would need someone so poor they had no interests in outside dealings

[Lanny_McDonald]

While he has great intentions and has the right idea of removing money from politics, nik has a very hard time understanding the American political system and how money and influence finds it way into it. With the passage of Citizens United it is very easy to funnel money into politics, the vast majority of it unregulated. If someone really wants to get money directly to a politician it is much easier and effective to do it through a PAC or a Super PAC, seeing as that when the candidate ends their campaign they get to keep the cash in the basket. The worst, absolutely worst way to funnel money to a politician is through a charitable foundation. Charities are highly regulated and have to make regular filings to maintain their status as a charity. Any significant wrong doing results in that charity being fined and losing its status. The PAC concept is how you directly influence a politician. The charitable foundation is how a politician can directly influence the world around them without having to worry about the machinations of the political system. Yuge difference.