Sunday, September 11, 2016

A Tale of Two Charitable Foundations by the Clowntown Observer

The Charlotte Observer’s editorial board disgusts me.  These people are shameless partisans to the point of being clownish.   If you hear another mysterious evil clown report, just write it off as the circus at the Charlotte Observer.

Here we have a tale of two op-eds from the Clowntown Observer.  One is about Pam Bondi and Donald Trump’s pay to play and the other is Hillary Clinton’s no pay to play.  First the Trump editorial it begins:

If Donald Trump were treated like an ordinary presidential candidate, the speculations swirling around an illegal donation his charitable foundation gave to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) might dog his campaign from now until Election Day. The situation smells of influence-buying. Even if one takes Bondi’s explanations seriously, the facts already on the record are damning.

It ends:

The news should, however, remind voters of two of the many disqualifying elements of Trump’s record. First is the scandal of Trump University and the Trump Institute, but voters should also see how Trump once again attempted to use his charitable foundation, which other people have funded over the past several years, for his own personal ends. The $25,000 he transferred from the foundation to Bondi was an illegal donation; charitable groups cannot give to campaigns.

These points, among others, suggest that Trump’s penchant for lying and deception does not end with relatively harmless campaign-season overstatement. It is a business strategy, and it has real-world consequences.

Isn’t that precious?  Now get a load of the Hillary Clinton scandal, it begins with this:

If you believe public officials’ doors should be equally open to all, you can’t be happy with the news that Clinton Foundation donors comprised more than half of the private citizens Hillary Clinton met with while secretary of state.

There’s no evidence of pay-for-play, as Donald Trump keeps insisting. It appears no laws were broken or ethics rules compromised. And yet, giving 85 of 154 private audiences to donors to your family’s charity sure smells like pay-for-access, if not pay-for-play.

As bad as that looks, though, it’s legally OK. If it weren’t, ethical shadows might dog the entire Congress. Our leaders won’t admit it, but pay-for-access goes on in Washington, D.C., all day every day. And yet, Congress just can’t seem to pass effective campaign finance reform to squelch the impact of big money on our politics

It gets even better.

The foundation does critically important work around the globe. Clinton foes who are reducing it to a political foil might not literally be bound for hell, as ex-Clinton aide James Carville suggests, but surely new leadership can step in to continue its good deeds.

In the meantime, D.C. partisans who are shocked – shocked! – to find possible pay-for-access in their midst should pass legislation strengthening safeguards against it.

The Clinton Foundation spent 10% on charitable grants while pocketing nearly 67%.  The only good work that’s being done is lining the pockets of the Clintons.  It’s time for the Charlotte Observers editorial board to pile back into their clown car.


No comments: