A leaked memo from a top Bill Clinton aide that became public this week reflects why so many voters question the Clintons' judgment and personal ethics. The lengthy memo from a key figure at the Clinton Foundation details how millions were raised from corporations for both the foundation and for personal income for the former president, a disturbing blurring of the lines that suggests an unseemly sense of entitlement. If Hillary Clinton is elected president, there should be a clean break from the foundation and all Clinton family members.
The 2011 memo written by Douglas Band, an important player at the foundation and president of his own consulting firm, was made public by the group WikiLeaks, which is releasing thousands of hacked emails from Democrats. Band describes in remarkable detail the workings of "Bill Clinton Inc.,'' and it's not a pretty picture. It may not be illegal, but that sure doesn't make it right.
With Band at the center, the grab for money in return for access to the former president was straightforward. Band solicited corporations such as Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola that were clients of his consulting firm, Teneo. He asked for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and in many cases he also sought separate deals that provided millions in personal income to the former president. For example, UBS Global Wealth Management contributed to the foundation, paid Bill Clinton about $2 million in speaking fees over four years — and paid Hillary Clinton $225,000 for a 2013 speech after she left as secretary of state. There may have been separate checks for the foundation and for the former president, but all of that money sloshing around benefited the Clinton brand and raises questions about what the donors thought they were buying.
That's not all. Band also wrote how he helped obtain "in-kind services for the President and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.'' With their income soaring, it seems the Clintons could have paid for their vacations like most Americans. But too often they have behaved as though normal conventions do not apply to them as long as their goals are pure — and that disconnect between means and result is what so frustrates even many of their longtime supporters.
There is no direct mention of Hillary Clinton in the Band memo, but there were cracks in the wall between the State Department, the foundation and various players wearing multiple hats. Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department was involved with foundation. The co-founder of Band's consulting firm was both an unpaid economic envoy to Northern Ireland and head of a separate consulting firm whose clients included corporations that contributed to the Clinton Foundation. Another email showed Hillary Clinton promised to attend a Clinton Foundation event in Morocco, whose king had pledged $12 million to the foundation, after she no longer was secretary of state. No wonder Clinton aides were worried about appearances as she prepared to run for president.
Spend your days with Hayes
Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter
You’re all signed up!
Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.
Explore all your optionsTo her credit, it was Chelsea Clinton who became concerned about the big money and the relationship between Band's consulting firm and the foundation. It was that concern that prompted Band to write the leaked memo in 2011 to defend his efforts and the foundation to enact new reforms. And it remains undisputed that the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates oversee impressive efforts fighting AIDS and reducing poverty around the world.
Those good works do not excuse the mingling of foundation interests and the Clintons' interest in building personal wealth. The Clinton Foundation announced in August that Bill Clinton would resign from the board and the foundation would stop accepting corporate and foreign donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president. But Chelsea Clinton also should cut her ties to the foundation. The wall between the Clinton Foundation and the White House should be solid, and anything less would erode the credibility and public trust of another President Clinton.