Washington Times - Hillary Rodham Clinton’s efforts to provide favors to major donors to her husband’s global charity or her own political career stretch back far earlier than her tenure as America’s top diplomat, dating to the time she served as a U.S. senator and had the power to earmark federal funds and influence legislation, records show.
For instance, Mrs. Clinton introduced a bill when she was New York’s junior senator that allowed a donor to the Clinton Foundation to use tax-exempt bonds to build a shopping center in Syracuse, New York, public records show.
She also went to bat for Freddie Mac, working to defeat legislation that would have subjected the mortgage giant to tougher regulations before the housing bubble burst and led to a major recession. That same year, Freddie Mac donated $50,000 to $100,000 to her husband’s charity, originally called the William J. Clinton Foundation records show.
Mrs. Clinton also used her leverage as a senator to help persuade the Chinese government to reduce tariffs on Corning Inc.’s fiber optic products. The central New York company’s employees and executives contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to her campaigns and political action committee.
Analysts on political money have said the pattern of Mrs. Clinton’s intervention on behalf of donors to her husband’s charity raise troubling ethical questions.
“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group, told the New York Post in April after conflict-of-interest reports started surfacing between the Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton’s political work.
2 comments:
Is there another source for this report other then the moonie newspaper?
The Clintons obviouly smell worse than 5 day old fish, but to fault her for lobbying on behalf of Corning, a New York based company,seems a bit unfair. Lobbying for the home state firms is an accepted part of a senator's role. That she received campaign donations as a quid quo pro is unfortunately how the system operates and, as disgusting and intrinsically corrupt as that is, it is business as usual until there is comprehensive campaign finance reform or the abolition of our system of goverance and its replacement with something different.
The shopping center adventure seems more of a smoking gun.
If Billary are (re)elected to the presidency it will enable the final stages of the construction of a comprehensive, national security state ideology driven totalitarian plutocracy: Think el salvador or Guatemala on a continental scale.
Nobody does Firendly Fascism better than a Democratic politican: you will be able legally marry your favorite pet or inanimate object but be jailed for protesting the local SWAT team kicking in the doors of old people for not paying their medical bills. And the idiot "liberals" who think that idenity politics is actually politics will continue to tell us that we have to support Hillary b/c she has a vagina and therefore it will make her presidency "historic".
Post a Comment