How do you solve a problem like Bill Clinton?
A new report in the Times shows the problems the former president poses for his wife's campaign
We knew another Clinton scandal was coming.
Earlier this week, it was reported that The New York Times and other news organizations had teamed up with Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, a forthcoming book investigating the Clintons' ties to foreign governments and businesses. On Thursday, we saw the first fruit of that collaboration: a big investigative report by the Times showing that from 2009 to 2013, Hillary Clinton's State Department approved a series of acquisitions that handed Russia's atomic energy agency control over "one-fifth of all uranium production in the United States."
The problem? The Canadian magnates behind the deal had donated tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, while a Russian investment bank with an interest in the deal paid Bill Clinton a cool $500,000 for a single speech in Moscow.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Furthermore, the Clinton Foundation failed to publicly disclose a $2.35 million donation from the head of Uranium One, the company that controlled the uranium assets and was purchased by the Russian agency Rosatom. That was in violation of a disclosure agreement the Clinton Foundation had made with President Barack Obama to secure his nomination of Hillary Clinton to lead the State Department.
The Times report stops short of explicitly connecting Hillary Clinton to the deal. There's no smoking gun showing that she directed her State Department to approve the deal in exchange for the donations to the Clinton Foundation and the fat paycheck for Bill. Indeed, the deal had to be approved by a bunch of departments, including Treasury, Defense, and Homeland Security, which suggests the consensus opinion of the Obama administration was that it did not pose a threat to national security. Hillary Clinton may not have even signed off on it personally, leaving it to subordinates to approve.
So the glee with which this news has been met in the conservative press is probably unwarranted, particularly since Republican presidential candidates are openly selling their influence to oligarchs of the American variety. It is also very hard to believe that Hillary Clinton, who is known to be a rather ambitious woman, would be so dumb as to forfeit her chance at the presidency to pad her husband's pockets.
Still, this is hardly the first time that the Clintons have been accused of a conflict of interest. My colleague Peter Weber has rightly pointed out that all the money that flows into the Clinton Foundation goes to good causes — earthquake relief, economic development, women's health — even if it comes from unsavory sources. But as citizens of the post-Citizens United world, we all know that even the appearance of corruption can undermine faith in the political system, and for all appearances the Clintons are swimming in dirty money.
The Clintons could have done a much better job keeping their hands clean. As Jonathan Chait has written, "[T]he best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy." And I would add, per the Times report, that it is just flat crazy for Bill Clinton to be helping uranium magnates secure business deals by buttering up Kazakh dictators.
Which brings us to the crux of the problem. While Republicans would clearly like to make this scandal about the political entity known as the Clintons, the real trouble here is Bill. Yes, Hillary Clinton accepts large speaking fees — but who in the political universe doesn't? Yes, the Clinton Foundation has been retooled as a vehicle for the entire Clinton family, including Chelsea — but for all the good it has done, the foundation doubled as a platform for Bill to retain influence and power while his wife served in the Senate, then ran for president, then ran the State Department for four years. It is through Bill that these foreign governments and businesses, however ineffectually, have been trying to shape U.S. policy and win favors.
Hillary Clinton has already resigned from the Clinton Foundation's board, and were she to become president, she would obviously cut all ties to the foundation. But will her husband? Will foreign governments and businessmen continue to be able to send enormous checks to the president's husband's foundation? Do the Clintons really think they can run the country and a massive philanthropic organization at the same time, with all the conflicts of interest that arrangement implies?
These are questions that are sure to dog her campaign. While the Clinton Foundation has introduced new limits on foreign government donations, in significant ways it appears Bill plans to keep doing business as usual through the campaign and beyond. And anyway, after all that we know now, can anyone trust that these limits will be enforced? Wouldn't it be better for Hillary Clinton's campaign if the Clintons, as a whole, cut their ties to the foundation?
And if so, shouldn't they start making these changes now?
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Ryu Spaeth is deputy editor at TheWeek.com. Follow him on Twitter.
-
Today's political cartoons - March 17, 2024
Cartoons Sunday's cartoons - history repeating, the Pope's white flag, and more
By The Week US Published
-
The Week Unwrapped: Derelict homes, Welsh mines, and vinyl
Podcast What can we do about abandoned property? Are old mines still doing us harm? And what do LP sales tell us about the economy?
By The Week Staff Published
-
Dresden: on the trail of a Romantic icon in Germany
the week recommends The Saxon city celebrates the 250th birthday of Caspar David Friedrich this year
By The Week UK Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Xi-Biden meeting: what's in it for both leaders?
Today's Big Question Two superpowers seek to stabilise relations amid global turmoil but core issues of security, trade and Taiwan remain
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Will North Korea take advantage of Israel-Hamas conflict?
Today's Big Question Pyongyang's ties with Russia are 'growing and dangerous' amid reports it sent weapons to Gaza
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published