Politicizing donations to Clinton Foundation

GEORGE E. CURRY | 6/1/2015, 1:07 a.m.
Like the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropy that primarily funds education, world health and population projects, ...
George Curry

(NNPA) – Like the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropy that primarily funds education, world health and population projects, the Clinton Foundation was established to address such issues as climate change, global health, economic development, health and wellness, and problems involving women and girls.

In a crass effort to derail Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign bid, major Republican figures and Fox News, their partner-in-crime, are peddling the idea that there is something inherently wrong with supporting private efforts to improve the world.

As Media Matters observes, they are falsely equating donations to the Clinton Foundation with contributions to a Democratic political campaign. The media watchdog group observes, “The foundation is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, which means it is absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

Media Matters wrote, “Paul Waldman, an American Prospect senior writer and former Media Matters senior fellow, criticized Politico reporter Dylan Byers for drawing a misleading parallel between donating to a candidate’s campaign and donating to a charitable foundation run by an ex-president.”

Other media figures have similarly made the false political campaign comparison. Fox News host Gretchen Carlson, Breitbart.com, National Review Online and HotAir.com, all suggested a donation to the foundation was equivalent to financing Democratic candidates.

As Waldman explained at The Washington Post, “It’s notable that everyone is now treating the Clinton Foundation as if it has long been central to sort of scheme to personally benefit the Clintons, and not a charitable foundation.” He added, “That judging by the way the foundation is now talked about as if anyone who has had any association with it is tainted you’d think it was running a network of international assassins instead of distributing malaria medication.”

Partisan critics conveniently neglect to note that prominent Republicans are also generous contributors to the Clinton Foundation.

For example, Rupert Murdoch, founder of the News Corporation Foundation, and his son, James, have given more than a million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. In fact, more than a dozen news organizations have donated to the foundation.

Aside from the overt political attack on the Clinton Foundation, the case of George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton administration press secretary, illustrates the problems associated with a political operative switching careers in hopes of being viewed as a credible journalist.

Too often television talking heads are labeled journalists when they are anything but. As the American Press Institute notes, “Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. In other words, it’s not merely the ability to share one’s opinions.”

Stephanopoulos erred by making a $75,000 contribution to the Clinton Foundation, knowing it could call into question his ability to be fair. He compounded the mistake by failing to disclose it to the public. Like it or not, if journalists want to maintain their credibility, they must refrain from participating in overt political acts or behavior that can be perceived that way.