Dear fellow Democrats,
I am writing to request your support for adding to the 2016 Democratic Party Platform a provision requiring Presidents- and Vice Presidents-elect to divest themselves of potentially troublesome outside interests before taking office. You will find the provision at the bottom of this page, and I hope you will give it serious consideration.
What prompts this proposal begins with an opinion piece that appeared in the New York Times on May 22. (“Possible Conflict at Heart of Clinton Foundation,” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/us/politics/election-clinton-foundation.html.) The author and two legal scholars he quotes conclude that there isn’t “any way to avoid the appearance of conflicts [of interest]” if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency and doesn’t put the Clinton Foundation beyond any possibility of continuing influence by the Clinton family. I agree. Even better would be for the Clintons to take their names off the Foundation, and perhaps even close it down as a distinct entity. It would not be difficult to transfer its endowment and ongoing projects to one or more other foundations (e.g., the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with whom the Clinton Foundation has at times partnered).
The Clinton Foundation has done many good works. They include feeding children, training farmers, and reducing emissions around the globe [1]. But it is also true that many controversies swirl around the Foundation, Secretary Clinton, and the State Department, including allegations of: Appointing a major donor to a highly sensitive intelligence board for which he was not qualified [2] Awarding lucrative contracts, including weapons deals, to foreign entities that have donated large sums of money to the Foundation [3][4] Providing tens of millions in grants to Laureate University while Bill Clinton was paid millions as honorary Chancellor, and the university's founder donated millions to the Foundation [5] Private meetings between Secretary Clinton and large Clinton Foundation donors that are not recorded in State Department calendars [6] Using Foundation resources to provide financial support to members of her inner circle expected to staff Mrs. Clinton’s presidential bid and her anticipated administration [7]
And the above sampling doesn’t include controversies about the Clinton's piling up a fortune in ways that don’t directly involve the Foundation (e.g., the Goldman Sachs speeches). That total history (sarcastically derided by the Wall Street Journal as “the Clinton Business Model,” http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-business-model-1463178638) is the ammunition Donald Trump has promised to use in support of his “Crooked Hillary” theme. It isn’t my purpose to revisit all that. The record is what it is. If things go as expected, Secretary Clinton will be our nominee, and I will be supporting her.
How much enthusiasm I can muster will depend a great deal on how she conducts her campaign. I believe my attitude is representative of millions of Democrats, especially those of us who have been supporting Bernie Sanders. Three things would go a long way toward bolstering my confidence that Mrs. Clinton will govern as the Progressive she now claims to be. The first would be naming a Progressive running mate such as Senator Warren. The second would be to make sure Bill Clinton retires from outside money-making that looks like influence peddling. And the third would be to get rid of the Clinton Foundation.
I would hope Mrs. Clinton would see the above actions as both good policy and politically astute. But I’m not encouraged by the report in the May 22 Times article that “Mrs. Clinton has suggested that if she is elected, the foundation… would continue basically as is.” That’s not acceptable, and I believe that if this issue were aired at the Convention, the majority of delegates (and rank-and-file Democrats) would agree. With polls showing high levels of distrust of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, do we really want to go into the fall campaign with such a clear-cut ethics issue hanging over our nominee? (And if there is doubt about the potential for such issues to threaten her electability, the flap over Bill Clinton’s recent impromptu meeting with AG Loretta Lynch should be taken as a reminder: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html)
There is a further problem with the continuing existence of the Clinton Foundation, wholly aside from the question of the Clintons’ personal ethics. The Foundation’s activities are thoroughly entangled with foreign governments and NGOs. The potential for conflict with US foreign policy should be obvious, and no President should be conducting off-the-books foreign policy through outside entities. (The Reagan Administration tried it, and the result was Iran-Contra.)
Full disclosure: I have been working the last few months as an occasional volunteer for the Bernie Sanders campaign here in South Jersey. However, this proposal is my own initiative and is not being coordinated with any of Sen. Sanders’ staff. Whatever support it gets will be grassroots and viral. I’m a retired lawyer, and a registered Democrat since 1972. I am active in my local Democratic party and a member of the Camden County Democratic Committee.
Among my concerns about Secretary Clinton as our nominee is the difficulty I’ve been having talking to “Bernie or Bust” Democrats and Independents. I have friends whom I consider otherwise sane who are seriously talking about voting for Donald Trump, because they “just don’t trust Hillary!” It will be hard for me to talk them around if the Clintons don’t make a serious commitment to being above suspicion going forward.
Finally, I ask you to consider what will happen if Hillary Clinton takes office next January 20 without having cut ties to potentially conflicting outside interests. Let’s assume the Republicans will retain control of at least one House of Congress. Is there any doubt they will launch a new investigation of the Clinton Foundation on January 21? Do we need that?
The Convention has the power to prevent that from happening. In closing, let me note that my suggested Platform plank also deals with the problem posed by a businessman becoming President. The remedy is the same: divestment of outside interests. I don’t expect the Republicans will make that demand of Trump. But putting it in the Democratic Party Platform will help us to make an issue of it against him. Thank you for reading this and for considering the attached proposal.
Respectfully yours,
Bruce S. Schwartz
This proposal is critical, especially in light of a potential Clinton presidency.