Even Clinton supporters should be concerned about their money raising activities, such as reported in the Investor's Business Daily article.

Clinton's Filthy Lucre
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, February 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Ethics: Is it just us, or is there something off about ex-president Bill Clinton using his influence overseas to enrich a pal and then accepting the pal's big donation to his foundation? This looks like a bribery racket.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Topics: General Politics


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Strong words, yes, but a New York Times report details a 2005 incident of Clinton and a minor Canadian mining financier jetting into Kazakhstan, where the two met with the local strongman. Shortly afterward, Clinton's pal won a huge uranium-mining contract that left competing mining companies astounded.

Anything untoward? Clinton says of course not. After all, doesn't every ex-president jet in to Central Asia from time to time to check up on his charity projects and sample the gourmet cuisine? Nothing to see here, move along.

But the story doesn't end there. Clinton's friend, Frank Giustra, eventually ended up a billionaire from that "lucky" trip. He then donated $31.3 million to Clinton's $208 million foundation as its largest donor in 2006. Any connection? Nada, Clinton's defenders say.

Who doesn't think something fishy is going on?

It's the tip of a larger problem with Clinton and his global foundation that was launched in 1997 to "make a difference."

Besides ending global warming and doling out AIDS medicine, it appears to have another purpose — as a vehicle for extending Clinton's global power reach. The foundation's potential to draw "thank you" donations for helpful acts like showing up in Almaty is just one part of it. It could go even further than that.

Another Clinton pal, Denise Rich, donated $450,000 to Clinton's library around the time that Clinton pardoned her ex-husband, Marc Rich, the fugitive financier on the lam for tax evasion and trading with the enemy. Any connection? Of course not.

It gets downright dangerous when one considers that Clinton's wife is now a front-runner for the Oval Office in 2009. With Hillary in high office, Clinton will be free to do as he pleases with his foundation but his proximity to real power will be far greater.

In a Dec. 20 report, the Times asked whether Clinton's foundation donations could be misused to "circumvent campaign finance laws intended to limit political influence."

That's worth paying attention to, because Clinton Foundation records show that one of the few projects it has funded is a group called Acorn, which had employees convicted of voter fraud.

So if Bill Clinton can and is willing to sway, even implicitly by his presence, a distant satrap such as Kazakhstan's leader to help a crony, then the potential for him to sway a U.S. president who may have interest in perpetuating herself and her pals in power is even greater.

Meanwhile, there's been a mysterious rise in donations that have been washing into the William J. Clinton Foundation's coffers. Mysterious, because most of the donors are anonymous.

A look at the foundation's 2006 donors from its most recent Form 990 IRS return shows that not one of the top 13 donors are identified. Clinton says he won't disclose them because he promised anonymity but for future donors, if his wife becomes president, he will.

Even that isn't as magnanimous as it looks. To all who would like to have Bill on their string, it's tantamount to a dinner call to get their donations in now. Not surprisingly, donations rose most sharply in 2006, the last published year, by almost 50% to $138.5 million.

The Washington Post reported last month that 10% of Clinton's donations for his presidential library were from overseas sources — not just wealthy businessmen, but foreign governments, too. The Saudis gave $10 million, and Kuwait and Brunei also chipped in.

It all shows that if there is a loophole, Clinton will take it. Appearances of impropriety mean nothing to him. But with a new Clinton in the White House, the stakes rise. As money rolls in and the Clintons take power, this specter of an ex-president sitting on a cash-hungry foundation and his wife in a position to dole out favors bears potential for Marcos-like corruption and a sellout of American interests on a scale unknown in the U.S. Who is going to stop them?

But no, based on previous events, true believer Democrat's probably don't see anything wrong.