Organizational lapses, such as in non-profits or companies, regarding
institutional conflicts of interest can extend in impact as far as distorting
or impairing government policy and national interest if a principal of the
organization also holds a high government office. Relying on whether a position
in such a dual-role has scruples of character against exploiting conflicts of
interest is vulnerable because people differ substantially in character. As a
result, I contend that even the appearance of such conflicts should not be
permitted. I use the case of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the
Clinton Foundation to make my point.
In late 2011, “lawyers from Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett
LLP, the firm contracted to run the internal Foundation audit, emailed
a draft of a government memorandum and
recommendations to Podesta, who was serving as a special advisor to the
Foundation [and would be Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager], and Bruce
Lindsey, then the Foundation’s CEO.”[1]
The audit draft indicated that a conflict-of-interest policy had not been implemented.
Conflicts were not disclosed in a timely fashion, and board members did not
follow the policy when they became aware of conflicts of interest. “In
addition, some interviewees reported conflicts of those raising funds or
donors, some of whom may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return
for gifts,” according to the draft.[2]
For example, a leaked email from Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of
Staff at the U.S. State Department indicates that Hillary Clinton arranged a
$12 million donation from Moroccan King Mohammed VI to the Clinton Foundation
in 2014 in return for the Clinton Global Initiative hosting its international
meeting in Morocco.[3]
The broader question is whether Hillary Clinton exploited
the conflict of interest between her discretion as Secretary of State—a public
interest—and her private interest in the Clinton Foundation. After the
government of Saudi Arabia had contributed at least $10 million to the
Foundation and Boeing had contributed $900,000, Clinton cleared the sale to the
Kingdom of $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets, including Boeing’s F-15.[4]
That Israel was warning the Obama Administration that the sale would destabilize
the Middle East suggests that the United States’ national interest was not
being served. Perhaps the question for a person in such a dual-role is
precisely, what is being served?
When Hillary Clinton was serving
as the Secretary of State, “the State Department approved $165 billion
worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments [had] given
money to the Clinton Foundation.”[5]
The Department “also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered
deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation.”[6]
Even if motive cannot be definitively ascribed, that the Secretary permitted the appearance of the conflict of
interest may reflect an underlying problem of character, and perhaps even a general
toleration societally of institutional conflicts of interest even at high
levels. Clearly, the problem of conflicts of interest was not taken seriously
within the Foundation. According to the audit memo, the lawyers found no
evidence that the Foundation’s own written conflict-of-interest policy was
enforced.[7]
At the very least, this enabled the sort of conflict-of-interest that Hillary
Clinton enabled the appearance of at the State Department.
Therefore, I contend that society should not allow even the
appearance of institutional conflicts of interest. Of course, such a
prohibition would itself require a societal sentiment of disapprobation
regarding the institutional sort of conflict-of-interest, and, unfortunately, I
suspect that at least as of November, 2016 too many Americans—even if for
partisan reasons—were indifferent toward such conflicts of interest and the
high-level people who have exploited them or at least have been fine with
standing in the shadow of such conflicts.
[1] “Clinton
Aide Says Foundation Paid for Chelsea’s Wedding, WikiLeaks Emails Show,” FoxNews.com,
November 6, 2016.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Richard Pollock, “WIKILEAKS: Hillary Got $12 Million for Clinton Charity As
Quid Pro Quo For Morocco Meeting,” The
Daily Caller, October 20, 2016.
[4]
David Sirota and Andrew Perez, “Clinton
Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department,
International Business Times, May 26,
2015.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Ibid.
[7] “Clinton
Aide Says Foundation Paid for Chelsea’s Wedding, WikiLeaks Emails Show,” FoxNews.com,
November 6, 2016.
