Two days later the NYT urges her to stop, just stop. TM

Separate Philanthropy From Political Clout
Hillary Clinton Should Ban Foreign Donors to the Clinton Global Initiative By THE EDITORIAL BOARD FEB. 20, 2015

The Clinton Foundation has become one of the world’s major generators of charity, mobilizing global efforts to confront issues like health, climate change, economic development and equality for women and girls.

Since its inception in 2001, it has raised nearly $2 billion in cash and pledges with millions more flowing in from an impressive array of donors, including foreign governments, financial chieftains and domestic donors, many of the latter political heavyweights.

All of which underlines the need for Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her all but certified role as a Democratic presidential candidate, to reinstate the foundation’s ban against foreign contributors, who might have matters of concern to bring before a future Clinton administration. This was a restriction Mrs. Clinton worked out with the Obama administration to allay concerns of potential conflict of interest when she became secretary of state in 2009.

According to a report this week in The Wall Street Journal, the ban was dropped after Mrs. Clinton left the administration in 2013, leading to a resumption of donations from foreign governments and agencies to the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, which sponsors conferences of world leaders from government, industry and philanthropy. Donors have included the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Oman and a Canadian government agency reported to be involved in promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.

Foreign nationals are banned by law from contributing to American politicians’ campaign coffers. This ban does not apply to private foundations, but the idea behind it — that influence should not be bought — is relevant to a political campaign, where appearances can count for much.

The foundation, which has drawn bipartisan praise in the past, emphasizes that it is solely a philanthropy, not a political machine, declaring, “The bottom line: These contributions are helping improve the lives of millions of people across the world, for which we are grateful.”

No critic has alleged a specific conflict of interest. The foundation, in fact, went beyond normal philanthropic bounds for transparency six years ago in instituting voluntary disclosure of donors within broad dollar ranges on its website. But this very information can feed criticism.

Donations from foreign governments and nationals, for example, were found to make up more than half of the category of $5-million-plus contributions, according to The Washington Post. A third of donations in the $1-million-plus bracket came from foreign governments and other overseas entities.

Substantial overlap was found between foundation contributors and familiar Clinton campaign donors and money bundlers. Considering the Clintons’ popularity and influence in their party, this is no surprise. But it does make it important that Mrs. Clinton, in defending the family’s efforts on behalf of the world’s needy, reassure the public that the foundation will not become a vehicle for insiders’ favoritism, should she run for and win the White House.

Restoring the restrictions on foreign donors would be a good way to make this point as Mrs. Clinton’s widely expected campaign moves forward.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/opinio...ref=topics&_r=0

Ms Clinton is famous for returning illegitimate donations as soon as they are discovered ...but not until. Often the benefit of those donations has accomplished its purpose in the meanwhile.

Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #3

---

Ms Clinton is famous for returning illegitimate donations as soon as they are discovered ...but not until. Often the benefit of those donations has accomplished its purpose in the meanwhile.

---