There is another fascinating story about the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation out today. This one is in Politico, and it reports on alleged behind the scenes power struggles involving Eric Braverman, the Clinton Foundation’s former CEO, who resigned. This Politico story follows close on the heels of reports on the foundation’s receiving money from foreign governments, including some with serious human rights problems and in one instance in violation of an agreement with the Obama administration about foreign donations to the family foundation while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state.
The new Politico story, by reporter Kenneth Vogel, shows a lot about how the Clintons operate and like to depend on super-loyalist insiders. But two facts beyond the immediate internal power struggle jumped out at me: Braverman’s salary at the foundation was $395,000 plus bonuses, while Ira Magaziner, a Rhodes Scholar with Bill Clinton and chief operative in Hillary Clinton’s 1990s health care reform effort, was paid $413,000 by the foundation in salary and consulting fees in 2013.
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with a foundation paying such salaries, and foundations do a great deal of good work. Many foundations provide a way for rich people to make their money work for charitable and humanitarian causes that benefit enormously from these contributions.
Still, there are millions of people who prefer to give to, say, the Salvation Army over posher charities because it is well-known that Salvation Army officials aren’t able to lead cushy lives on the charity’s payroll. One is entitled to wonder: What on earth did Ira Magaziner do that was worth $413,000 in a single year with the Clinton Foundation? Is the charitable foundation a cushy holding pen for people who would play big roles in a Hillary Clinton administration? What does it actually accomplish in addition to putting on events that showcase the Clintons and those closest to them?
The foreign donations to the Clinton family foundation came up on a Sunday panel and former Democratic representative Jane Harman, who is now head of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, admitted that it looked bad but quickly added that the Clinton Foundation does good things. Kathleen Parker quickly expressed her assent.
But do either of them really know what this $2 billion foundation really does? Isn’t this just a vague nod to the notion that charity is good (which it is)? The things the public needs to know about the Clinton Foundation can’t be discovered with your Guide Star password. If you listen to the Clintons, you might think that Mrs. Clinton’s 300 K speeches go to charity (the family foundation). We need to know what that charity does for those it purports to aid and what it does for the Clintons.
Let’s hope that Mr. Vogel and other reporters will enlighten us as to what role the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation plays in Hillary World—and what role it plays in the world of philanthropy.