It doesn’t exactly take a jaded disposition to doubt that donations from some of the world’s most repressive regimes space motived by a desire to assist the foundation’s charity work.

You are watching: How much did saudi arabia donated to the clinton foundation


As the numerous and obvious ethical conflicts surrounding the Clinton foundation receive more media scrutiny, the tactic of Clinton-loyal journalists is to highlight the charitable work done by the foundation, and also then insinuate — or even outright state — the anyone raising these inquiries is opposed to its charity. James Carville announced that those who criticize the structure are “going come hell.” other Clinton loyalists insinuated the Clinton foundation critics space indifferent to the stays of HIV-positive babies or are anti-gay bigots.

That the Clinton foundation has excellent some good work is past dispute. But that reality has exactly nothing to perform with the profound moral problems and also corruption threats increased by the means its funds have actually been raised. Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat, and also tyrannical energy such as the Saudis and also Qataris jointly donated 10s of numerous dollars come an organization run by her family and also operated in its name, one who works has actually been a prominent function of she public persona. That extremely beneficial opportunity to curry favor v the Clintons, and also to secure access to them, continues as she runs for president.


The insurance claim that this is every just around trying to help people in need should not also pass a laugh test, let alone reasonable scrutiny. To see just how true that is, simply look in ~ who few of the best donors are. Return it did not provide while she was secretary of state, the Saudi program by itself has donated in between $10 million and also $25 million come the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming together late together 2014, as she all set her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave second amount between $1 million and also $5 million. The Clinton foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State the Qatar,” the unified Arab Emirates, and also the government of Brunei. “The State the Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.

Theoretically, one might say the these energy — amongst the many repressive and regressive in the world — are donating due to the fact that they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton structure and want to assist those in need. Is there a solitary person on the earth who actually believes this? Is Clinton commitment really so strong that people are going come argue v a straight face that the factor the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated huge amounts the money to the Clinton Foundation is due to the fact that those regimes merely want to aid the foundation achieve that is magnanimous goals?

Here’s one of the Clinton Foundation’s primary objectives; decide for you yourself if its tyrannical donors room acting v the engine of advancing that charitable goal:


*

*

*

All those who wish come argue that the Saudis donated numerous dollars come the Clinton structure out the a magnanimous desire to assist its charitable causes, you re welcome raise your hand. Or take the newfound spreading of the Clinton structure as a champion that LGBTs, and the smearing the its movie critics as indifferent come AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board through these benevolent missions? and also the Qataris and also Kuwaitis?


*

*

Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s financially rewarding relationship come those vigorously anti-gay regimes, or cheering and also defending that relationship? every the proof points to the latter. But whatever rather is true, it is a blatant humiliation to everyone’s knowledge to claim that the engine of these regimes in carrying millions come the Clinton foundation is a selfless desire to aid them in your noble work.

Another main project the the Clinton structure is the removed of wide range inequality, i beg your pardon “leads to significant economic disparities, both in ~ and amongst countries, and also prevents underserved populations from realizing your potential.” Who can possibly maintain that the factor the Qatari and also Emirates power donated millions come the Clinton structure was their desire to eliminate such financial oppression?


It doesn’t precisely take a jaded disposition come doubt the these donations from several of the world’s many repressive energy are urged by a desire to assist the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. To the contrary, it simply requires simple rationality. That’s particularly true provided that these regimes “have donated vastly much more money come the Clinton foundation than they need to most other huge private charities associated in the type of worldwide work championed through the Clinton family.” For part mystifying reason, they seem specifically motivated to deliver millions come the Clinton foundation but not the various other charities about the civilization doing similar work. Why could that be? What could ever explain it?

Some Clinton partisans, unwilling to insurance claim that Gulf tyrants have charity in your hearts once they make these donations to the Clinton Foundation, have worked out on a different tactic: grudgingly acknowledging the the motive of these donations is to obtain accessibility and favors, but insisting the no quid agree quo deserve to be proven. In various other words, this regimes to be tricked: They thought lock would obtain all kinds of favors with these millions in donations, however Hillary Clinton was just too honest and upstanding of a public maid to satisfy their expectations.

The reality is that there is ample evidence uncovered through journalists arguing that power donating money to the Clinton structure received special accessibility to and also highly favorable therapy from the Clinton State Department. Yet it’s also true that nobody can dispositively prove the quid pro quo. Put an additional way, one cannot prove what was going on within Hillary Clinton’s head at the time that she gave access to or otherwise acted in the understanding of these donor regimes: to be she doing it together a donate in return because that those donations, or simply because she has actually a proven affinity because that Gulf State and also Arab dictators, or because she was merely continuing decades the U.S. Policy of propping up pro-U.S. Tyrants in the region?

While this “no quid pro quo proof” may be true as far as the goes, it’s very ironic the Democrats have taken on it together a defense the Hillary Clinton. After all, this has long to be the primary debate of Republicans that oppose campaign finance reform, and also indeed, it was the primary dispute of the Citizens United majority, once shown by Democrats together the source of every evil. But now, Democrats have to line increase behind a politician who, together with her husband, specializes in uniting political power with huge private wealth, in constantly exploiting the latter to gain the former, and vice versa. So Democrats are compelled to jettison every the good-government values they previously claimed to believe and also instead are now advocating the crux that the right-wing case against campaign finance reform: that large donations indigenous vested factions are not naturally corrupting of national politics or politicians.

Indeed, together I documented in April, Clinton-defending Democrats have actually now come to be the many vocal champions of the primary discussion used through the Citizens United majority. “We currently conclude,” composed Justice Anthony Kennedy for the Citizens United majority, “that elevation expenditures, consisting of those make by corporations, perform not offer rise come corruption or the appearance of corruption.” the is now precisely the dispute Clinton loyalists are spouting to defend the millions in donations from tyrannical regimes (as well as wall surface Street banks and hedge funds): Oh, there’s no evidence there’s any kind of corruption walk on with all of this money.

The elusive nature the quid pro quo evidence — now the primary democratic defense the Clinton — has also long to be the principal discussion wielded through the most effective enemy of campaign finance reform, GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell. This is how USA Today, in 1999, described the debates of McConnell and his GOP allies when objecting to accusations from campaign finance reform proponents that large financial donations room corrupting:

Senate adversaries of limiting money in politics injected a bitter personal note right into the dispute as reformers started an uphill pursuit to change a device they say has corrupted American government. …

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the legislation’s cook opponent, tested reform support Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to name Senate partner who have been corrupted through high-dollar politics contributions.

See more: How Long Will A Refrigerator Last Without Power, Food Safety For Power Outages

”How deserve to there be corruption if nobody is corrupt?” McConnell asked, zeroing in top top McCain’s constant speeches about the problem in his presidential campaign. ”That’s favor saying the corridor is corrupt but none of the gangsters are.”

When McCain refuse to surname names, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, faced him. Standing just eight feet from the on the Republican next of the chamber, Bennett charged the McCain had accused him of corruption in seek pork-barrel spending for his home state.

”I to be unaware of any money provided that influenced my action here,” Bennett said. ”I have been accused of being corrupt. … ns take an individual offense.”

The i can not qualify to prove that political leaders acted as quid agree quo as soon as taking actions the benefited donors has lengthy been the main weapon of those opposing project finance reform. That is now the primary dispute of democratic partisans to protect Hillary Clinton. In Citizens United, Justice man Paul Stevens composed a scathing disagreement on precisely this point, one the Democrats when cheered: