Campaign Finance and Favoritism Issues Involving Politicians' Charities

It seems so mean-spirited to talk about the conflicts of interest that arise from politicians’ charitable activities, but the revelations about the Clinton Foundation show, in big numbers, what happens so often, in smaller numbers, across the country.

There are limits on how much money one can give to a candidate. But there are no limits on how much money one can give to a candidate’s charity. In fact, even foreigners can give to a candidate’s charity, as they have to the Clinton Foundation.

No one can give an anonymous gift to a candidate. But anonymous gifts to charities are common.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

Bill Clinton has raised $500 million for his foundation. Many of its biggest givers (to the extent we know) are also big fundraisers for Hillary. Some also had something to gain from the former Clinton Administration when they first began to give, and will have something to gain as well as from a future Clinton Administration. They have given millions, and therefore will be owed a lot.

Why should politicians have charitable organizations or favorite charities at all? Aren’t they supposed to act in the public interest, not showing favoritism to particular individuals or companies? Shouldn’t this apply as well to charities?

A politician can only pick a charity for personal reasons, not for reasons arising from his or her obligations as a government official. Pushing for a charity one likes is an abuse of office, and is a violation of any ethics code that has a special consideration or favored treatment provision.

If politicians must be seen supporting charitable giving (as if anyone is against it), they should stick to umbrella organizations, such as the United Way, rather than picking out a favorite. This would be less likely to create the fact or appearance of favoritism, and would not allow individuals and companies an alternative way to give to a candidate without having to follow the legal restrictions on campaign giving. It would also encourage more and wider giving to organizations in the community, which is a legitimate way of using one’s office.