With all the attention on the antics of Trump and the GOP not much is being said about the ethical and moral divide ripping at the Democratic Party. It’s a fight with grave implications regarding how we as a nation handle the ethics of our politicians. If we don’t pay attention we face the creation of a generation of corrupt politicians
Lets go back a few years - not long, to 2001. The "revolving door" was a common theme in politics a few years before wherein public servants knew that by being favorable towards special interests they would receive campaign contributions in the present and then after leaving congress they would get lucrative jobs distributing special interest funds to their former colleagues.
This practice was clearly recognized as a form of corruption that enriched crooked politicians and then bent them to the special interests desires. As a result of public concerns, politicians passed laws regulating the amount of time needed to separate a politician from working as a highly paid lobbyist for the special interests.
Corruption being what it is, special interests soon found other venues to ply. "Buckraking," the practice of delayed rewards from special interests to politicians for speeches and appearances soon entered the picture.
In most cases this form of corruption has been doled out to politicians soon after they retired, with the money coming from special interests which had been well served by the politician while in office. The formula is well known by current office holders and is most often used by higher placed politicians, although lucrative jobs may also be part of the package for representatives.
A Unique Pair
No one has mastered Buckraking like the Clintons. They were able to leverage the system safeguards by swapping turns in public office. Here is how they did it:
1. The Clinton’s chose the financial hub of New York to move to after leaving the White House.
2. Hillary Clinton runs for the US Senate. She is sworn into office a week before Bill Clinton leaves office.
3. Special interests which were banned from giving Bill Clinton cash and other rewards while he was president were now free to give him large sums for speeches, even if they had business before the Senate.
In those first months out of office Bill Clinton began raking in enormous sums of money from both special interests and Wall Street, Hillary's "natural constituency," as well as from foreign governments and entities. Bill quickly amassed ten million, then twenty and within 6 years had taken in forty million dollars in speaking fees according to Hillary's senate disclosure papers.
This frenetic cash flow continued unabated with Hillary as Secretary of State. Bill’s fees were now 2 or 3 times larger. Many of these speeches were now coming from foreign interests, some with business before the State Department. All of this bringing us to the one hundred fifty three million dollars the Clintons have made from their paid speeches.
This sort of enrichment seems obscene to much of the electorate and it is driving a deep division into the party between those who accept politics as usual and those who see a hitherto unheard of abuse of office and public corruption in how the Clintons became incredibly rich playing off the power of office and the prospect of further high office.
Appearance Matters
The principles are clear and long held and have been laid out by former Supreme Court Justice Stephens: "It has likewise never been doubted that of almost equal concern as the danger of actual quid pro quo arrangements is the impact of the appearance of corruption.”
To defend our nation and uphold the confidence of our electorate from even the APPEARANCE of conflicts of interest we emplaced clear rules to follow:
Prominently placed first on the Senate Ethic Commitee's list of basic principles is that:
"A Member, officer, or employee may not use his or her official position for personal gain."
Unlike so much of the BS from congress this clear concise statement needs no explanation.
The second point on that list serves as a further hammer blow against corruption:
A Member, officer, or employee may not undertake any outside activity that creates a conflict of interest.
Even gifts and honoraria are banned to our legislators, not under ethics rules, but under federal law.
“Honorarium is a payment for any speech, article, or appearance. Federal law bans Members, officers, or employees from receiving any honorarium.”
This had no effect on Bill Clinton accepting a sixteen million dollar honorarium from Laureate University. Bill wasn’t in public office – but his wife was.
This should not have to be explained here. I have always found a majority of Democrats to be thoughtful intelligent people with good civic consciences. But, as so many excuses for the Clinton’s actions clearly prove, it does need to be explained here.
Congress has these rules in place restricting paid appearances and speeches because it is simply impossible to discern whether cash and gifts have been given as either a reward for past acts involving paid influence or for future reward-influenced decisions.
Those shouting "prove it! prove it!" are simply taking advantage of the same situation that the Clintons have used to make their millions – “prove it.”
It is ridiculous. Clinton knows it and her supporters do too: There are no contracts exchanged when special interests and politicians engage each other. There are no DNA tests available when special interests and politicians swap financial spit. There is no way to prove, no matter how many connections or how much money, just how a politician was influenced by a large sum of cash for their personal accounts.
We all know this. We all understand why we have the need for ethics rules and campaign finance laws.
Before Hillary this was never a question among Democrats. We were proud to push for clear rules and regulations so that even the appearance of conflicts of interest would not erode American's faith in their government.
And make no mistake, many millions of Americans no longer vote because they feel that their vote does not matter as the politicians have been purchased by special interests.
I believe Obama's greatest achievement has been in giving America an ethical and honest president. He has conducted himself in a manner such that his foulest foes find no footing in charges of graft and corruption.
That can not be true under a Clinton administration. Every action she takes will be looked at and seized upon by Americans as to whether the cash she had received, or the loaned jets, the vacations, the multi-million dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation, the sixteen million dollar "honorary chancellorships" or any of their other extravagant percs had anything to do with her actions.
It won't just be Republicans raising these issues. There are millions of Democrats and independents who have not lost their sense of ethics to a case of partisan tunnel vision. This is the disaster that Clinton creates - politicians can follow their lead, taking cash and rewards, with no one able to prove anything one way or another but the clear appearance of a conflict of interests. A vote for Clinton is a vote to smash the remaining walls against corruption. . We all lose when we can not trust our elected officials and when we don't hold them to the highest standards.
This all hurts the Democratic Party and it hurts our country. You don't sell your principles out just because your chosen candidates have sold theirs.
My position does not come from my current support of Sanders. I've said the same things about Clinton before Sanders was even a blip on the polls. I say these things because of Clinton's careless disregard for the importance of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Clinton doesn't get it. Her supporters don't get it. Our nation could pay the price.