"The key to dealing with conflicts — whether actual or potential — is transparency about any decision that could have an effect on Mr. Trump’s business interests if he decides not to divest his holdings or create a truly blind trust. Unlike the approach of many teenagers, who believe that it is easier to beg forgiveness than permission, in business the advance notice of a potential issue can lessen its impact. The challenge is coming up with a mechanism for dealing with questions that might arise from Mr. Trump’s business interests rather than relying on the good faith of the parties involved or deflecting the issue with claims that any criticism is only political, especially in foreign countries in which the president-elect has investments, as The New York Times points out... Some critics have pointed to potential problems Mr. Trump’s business interests could present under the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. That obscure provision provides that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”"
Issues and developments related to ethics, information, and technologies, examined in the ethics and intellectual property graduate courses I teach at the University of Pittsburgh School of Computing and Information. My Bloomsbury book "Ethics, Information, and Technology" will be published in Summer 2025. Kip Currier, PhD, JD
Showing posts with label divestments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label divestments. Show all posts
Monday, November 28, 2016
Congress May Hold Key to Handling Trump’s Conflicts of Interest; New York Times, 11/28/16
Peter J. Henning, New York Times; Congress May Hold Key to Handling Trump’s Conflicts of Interest:
Thursday, August 25, 2016
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."
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
The latest Clinton emails show what an ethics agreement shouldn’t look like; Washington Post, 8/23/16
Editorial Board, Washington Post; The latest Clinton emails show what an ethics agreement shouldn’t look like:
"“SECRETARY CLINTON’S ethics agreement at the time did not preclude other State Department officials from engaging with, or having contact with, the Clinton Foundation,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told Fox News, following the release of new information on interactions between staff at Hillary Clinton’s State Department and her family’s foundation. That does not mean that everything Ms. Clinton’s senior advisers did was pristine. Rather, it suggests the ethics agreement was not strong enough. As with the last data release, the new information, provided by the conservative activist group Judicial Watch and Fox News, does not show or imply corruption stemming from the relationship between Ms. Clinton and the Clinton Foundation... The foundation undoubtedly does worthwhile work. Should Ms. Clinton win, all of that work and all of the foundation’s assets should be spun off to an organization with no ties to the first family."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)