The Real Clinton Foundation Revelation; New York Times, 8/31/16

Richard W. Painter, New York Times; The Real Clinton Foundation Revelation:

"Lots of people and groups get favorable treatment, and most of these are interested in making money rather than giving it away.

The problem is that it does not matter that no laws were broken, or that the Clinton Foundation is principally about doing good deeds. It does not matter that favoritism is inescapable in the federal government and that the Clinton Foundation stories are really nothing new. The appearances surrounding the foundation are problematic, and it is and will be an albatross around Mrs. Clinton’s neck...

I’m a Republican, but I believe that Hillary Clinton is the only qualified major party candidate in the race and she should become president. Yet to win, and certainly to succeed as president, she needs to demonstrate that she understands how much appearances matter, as well as facts and law, and that the president should not unnecessarily open herself up to attack."

Former Bush ethics lawyer backs Clinton, warns on foundation; Politico, 8/31/16

Nick Gass, Politico; Former Bush ethics lawyer backs Clinton, warns on foundation:

"Hillary Clinton is the "only qualified candidate in the race and she should become president," President George W. Bush's former chief White House ethics lawyer wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday, while calling on the Democratic nominee to do more to assuage the fears and suspicions about the looming presence of the Clinton Foundation as an influence on policy.

"There is little if any evidence that federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton or anyone working for her at the State Department in their dealings with the foundation," wrote Richard W. Painter, currently a law professor at the University of Minnesota. "Unfortunately, the foundation is still fuel for Mrs. Clinton’s persistent critics."

Pointing out that Clinton's critics have yet to find proof of any violations of statutes or ethics regulations, Painter acknowledged that there was likely favoritism but concluded that no laws had been broken."

Cutting Ties to the Clinton Foundation; New York Times, 8/30/16

Editorial Board, New York Times; Cutting Ties to the Clinton Foundation:

"The Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintons’ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity. If Mrs. Clinton wins, it could prove a target for her political adversaries. Achieving true distance from the foundation is not only necessary to ensure its effectiveness, it is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton."

Ethicists scoff at Clinton Foundation transition plan; Politico, 8/25/16

Katy O'Donnell, Politico; Ethicists scoff at Clinton Foundation transition plan:

"The Clinton Foundation’s vague timetable to limit its involvement with overseas programs, and its insistence that Chelsea Clinton remain on its board, raise red flags for ethics watchdogs even as the charity vows to avoid conflicts of interest in a Hillary Clinton presidency."

The Clintons’ ethics test: Government watchdogs weigh in on the Clinton Foundation’s latest maneuvers; Salon, 8/23/16

Simon Maloy, Salon; The Clintons’ ethics test: Government watchdogs weigh in on the Clinton Foundation’s latest maneuvers:

"What has to happen, given that history, is that a Clinton administration’s dealings with people and entities linked to the Clinton Foundation would have to be handled with a high level of transparency. Per Holman, the Office of Government Ethics “could easily run through the donor lists to the foundation, identify the potential conflicts of interests of any administration actions and require, or ask for, full disclosure of the process.” POGO’s Amey noted that there are existing safeguards protecting against ethical breaches by government officials – recusal processes, mandatory divestments, etc – and those will have to be enforced to the highest degree. “We need to make sure that we go as far as we can with those initiatives,” says Amey, “to make sure that the White House is as clean as possible.”

So while it’s certainly welcome that the Clintons have taken steps to safeguard against further conflicts of interest through the Clinton Foundation, there’s still quite a backlog of donor history that can still cause them ethical trouble (to say nothing of the fact that the foundation will apparently continue taking foreign money up to the point that Hillary wins election). How much political damage they absorb from that will be determined largely by how transparent a future Clinton administration is willing to be."

Hillary Clinton’s Ethics Problems Are Worse Than She Understands; New York Magazine, 8/19/16

Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine; Hillary Clinton’s Ethics Problems Are Worse Than She Understands:

"“Give a man a reputation as an early riser,” said Mark Twain, “and he can sleep ‘til noon.” Hillary Clinton finds herself in the opposite situation: She has a reputation for venality — the merits of which we can set aside momentarily — that forces her to a higher ethical standard. Her inadequate response to the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation show that she is not meeting that standard, and has not fully grasped the severity of her reputational problem."

A porous ethical wall between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department; Washington Post, 8/14/16

Editorial Board, Washington Post; A porous ethical wall between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department:

"Though it is an exaggeration to claim that Ms. Clinton ran her agency as a pay-to-play operation, the latest unearthed emails from the Clinton State Department nevertheless reveal that the ethical wall she was supposed to have built between herself and her family’s organization was not impermeable enough...

Offering access, even just for sharing information, is providing a favor...

As political scandals go, this is middling, at best.

But it suggests that some donors to the Clinton Foundation may have seen their gifts as means to buy access — and it points to much bigger potential problems. Should Ms. Clinton win in November, she will bring to the Oval Office a web of connections and potential conflicts of interest, developed over decades in private, public and, in the case of her family’s philanthropic work, quasi-public activities. As secretary, she pledged to keep her official world and her family’s foundation separate, and she failed to keep them separate enough. Such sloppiness would not be acceptable in the White House."

Ethicists: Clinton team violated ‘spirit’ of pledge; Politico, 8/11/16

Katy O'Donnell, Politico; Ethicists: Clinton team violated ‘spirit’ of pledge:

"Ethicists tended to agree that while there may be no evidence of a deliberate violation of Clinton’s pledge, the emails underscored the blurry lines between the globe-spanning charity and Clinton’s work as the nation’s top diplomat.

“The Clinton Foundation was taking money from anybody who would give it, and the biggest contributions were from people who had business before the State Department,” said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen.

“They didn’t follow the pledge. … I don’t think anyone in the foundation sought to deliberately violate the pledge, I just don’t think they cared about it,” he added."