Hillary Clinton has been accused of abetting Arab Spring terrorists in Libya, killing Vince Foster, endangering national security by trying to keep her private emails private, failing to keep Bill’s pants zipped, and on and on. Most of the critiques are absurd or overblown, some contemptible. But one issue regarding the Clintons is troubling.
The murky workings of the Clinton Foundation and Global Initiative has attracted some criticism from the right, especially on grounds of conflict of interest and influence peddling, but the outcry has been relatively muted compared to emails and Benghazi,
Benghazi, Benghazi. Why?
Perhaps because foundations involve math or because many on both the right and left really don’t want to go here. The Clintons are not alone. Ever since the era of the Rockefellers the proliferation of foundations has been a peculiar feature of American life. They present a pleasing facade to the public, but it often masks a more mixed reality.
Do foundations engage in philanthropic good works? Yes, but much of the charity begins at home. They are to a large extent tax avoidance mechanisms for the very wealthy. They allow persons of means to lower their tax bill, to move assets off their personal balance sheet, to dodge the estate tax or to provide paying jobs for offspring by making them board members or directors.
Behind the pretense of philanthropy is self-interest, and the taxes avoided by the wealthy must be made up by those without the wherewithal to create foundations of their own, equipped with their corps of accountants and tax attorneys devoted to taking advantage of every dodge available.It’s a form of money laundering or perhaps reputation sanitizing.
Increasingly, foundations also serve as conduits to influence public policy. They are often practicing politics by other means, funneling cash to entities that, for tax purposes, are alleged to be performing a “social welfare” function. In fact many of the beneficiary organizations are transparently involved in partisan political actions.
Thus once again, behind the mask of charitable giving, self-interest is at work. Wealthy fossil fuel magnates use foundations to gift to groups that debunk global warming, other well-heeled donors use their foundations to finance groups that proselytize for free trade or lower taxes. Often the path the money follows is so byzantine it is impossible to trace its course from rich man to foundation to 501(c) to political ad on TV.
In “Dark Money” Jane Mayer showed how, over a period of a decade, the Koch brothers employed such chutes and ladders to direct tens of millions to three or four dozen entities seeking to influence elections or affect government policy while disguising the source of the money or the self-interest of the donors. They are far from the only practitioners of this dark art.
Foundations regularly promote their efforts in anodyne reports or glossy presentations that paint a heartwarming picture of their good works. Some actually do work in that way, but many are far from transparent and can be serving as fronts behind which less savory goals are being pursued. Clever structures can turn foundations into black holes whose actual workings are impenetrable by the public despite the vast sums they deploy and the power they can exert behind the scenes.
Will we see a serious effort to expose the workings of the Clinton Foundation? Don’t hold your breath. Many candidates, members of Congress and most of their big donors operate from the foundation twilight and have as little interest as the Clintons in a strong dose of disinfecting sunlight concerning their workings, their favorable tax treatment, their expenses and the political ends to which they are put.