My Review of Clinton Cash and Why it Matters

Bill and Hillary Clinton have formed political-financial alliances that few former presidents and first ladies have ever established, let alone, have couples seeking to become president and first gentleman. In Peter Schweizer’s latest smash expose, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, he follows the money between their public office and private citizen exploits, through the mega successful, Clinton Foundation. Since 2001, the Clinton Foundation has amassed a staggering $2 billion, mostly in chunks from globally powerful individuals, multinational companies and foreign countries.

Schweizer lays out compelling patterns in which the timing of policy decisions or international deals relative to donations, transcends coincidence - or at least, merits closer inspection. He narrates with crisp prose and illuminating detail. Though a few errors exist about certain speaking fees and event sequences, there’s no question that Bill Clinton’s speaking fees rose substantially after Hillary took the helm of State, as did Clinton Foundation donations from foreign countries and certain controversial operators.

The book runs 245 pages with an impressive 56 pages of endnotes. It might be tempting to dismiss Clinton Cash as a product of Schweizer’s own conservative leanings. Yet, his more recent works, Throw Them All Out and Extortion, have examined shenanigans on both sides of the aisle.

Plus, placing issues of possible impropriety or illegality in a partisan box, ignores the dangers of an oligarchical political system that hopelessly blurs public and private lines. The Clintons are champions of the ‘Clinton Blur’ as Schweizer dubs two of his chapters.

The Clintons are not alone in fusing the lines of public service and private positioning. As first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt ran many charitable initiatives. Yet, unlike Bill Clinton, who claims he needs high speaking fees to “pay our bills”, she donated her writing fees. President Harry Truman bestowed his humble post-presidential speaking fees to build the Truman Library. The Carters run the Carter Center dedicated to humanitarian causes. The George W. Bush Foundation raised more than $341 million from 2006 to 2011. Nearly half of the 2010-2011 funds came from 16 donors, which begs further investigation. Still, those figures pale in comparison to the Clinton Foundation money and power machine.

The Clintons, and various members of the press, have condemned Clinton Cash, both for what they deem to be unsubstantiated slams, and for being misleading and containing certain factual errors. For the most part, these beckon further debate and exploration, rather than being downright wrong.

For instance, in Chapter 3, Hillary’s Reset, Schweizer indicates Hillary was involved in approving the sale of a Canadian company, Uranium One, which held a large stake in US uranium output to the Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency (Rosatom). A Time magazine article found nothing linking Hillary specifically (or solely) to the related conversations. Yet, large donations did came from Uranium One Chairman, Ian Telfer, concurrent with the deal, and while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

Schweizer concedes in Chapter 5, The Clinton Blur (1) that, “The Clinton's ability to convene various public and private interests around a common cause or project does create leverage for getting things done in the global arena.” But, he goes on to say, “the blur also creates opportunity for moving a lot of money around with very little accountability.”

Certain longtime Clinton supporters are sketchy to criminal in behavior. One of them, Vinod Gupta, Indian entrepreneur and founder and chairman of InfoUSA, was a Clinton Foundation trustee. In 2010, he was charged with fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for using $9.5 million in company funds to support his extravagant lifestyle. He settled with the SEC for $7.3 million. His shareholders filed a separate suit over “misuse of corporate funds” including a $3 million consulting fee to Bill Clinton and “using corporate assets to fly the Clintons around.” The company settled for $13 million.

Sant Singh Chatwal, another trustee, was convicted for illegal campaign financing and obstruction of justice. He got no jail-time. Clinton Foundation board member, Argentine mogul, Rolando Gonzalez Bunster, was named in a fraud case in the Dominican Republic.

One could argue that it’s not the Clintons fault that some of their star supporters have such legality issues, though the company they keep renders their dismissals of conflicts of interest claims, less palatable. Maybe they should hang with a better class of billionaires?

By Schweizer’s tabulation, approximately 75% of the Clinton Foundation’s money has come from contributions of $1 million or more, with a fair share from foreign nationals. Some of that money buys respect in the Clinton circle, if not overt policy favoritism. Notable dictators from countries like Ethiopia and Rwanda were invited guests at Clinton Foundation events and praised for their leadership.

Some of that money secures profitable business deals. In 2009, Schweizer writes, Hillary Clinton “pushed Russian officials to sign a [$3.7 billion] airplane agreement with Boeing. Two months after Boeing won the contract, the company pledged $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.” In Haiti, Schweizer depicts certain disaster-relief contracts as awarded along the lines of Clinton Foundation donors. These depictions have been criticized for accuracy, though still point toward partiality, if not direct money flow.

Beginning in 2009, Schweizer writes, “Swedish telecom giant Ericsson came under US pressure for selling telecom equipment to oppressive governments,” including to Sudan, Syria, and Iran and Belarus. Erickson decided to sponsor a speech for which Bill Clinton received a record $750,000 at a Telecom conference. A week later on November 19^th, 2011, the State Department had removed telecoms from its sanctions list. The causality again isn’t distinctly proven. However the order of events is eye raising.

In Chapter 8, Warlord Economics, Schweizer writes that as a senator, Hillary “took the lead in rooting out Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) corruption and violence.” But when she became Secretary of State, her stance had softened considerably. According to Schweizer, certain “changes in policies conformed with the interest of Clinton Foundation large donors.”

He notes that, “The cluster of donors and advisers to the Clintons who rely on warlords and corrupt dictators is not confined to the DRC, Ethiopia, or Sudan.” It includes a Clinton pal with ties to the corrupt regime in Nigeria where Bill Clinton gave two of his most lucrative talks ($700,000 each) after Hillary became Secretary of State.

Controversial billionaire businessman Gilbert Chagoury made a fortune aiding former Nigerian dictator, Sani Abacha in various oil and money funneling schemes. His name comes up frequently regarding bribery and other scandals, though he was never explicitly charged by the US Department of Justice.

In response to the book, Bill Clinton has insisted, “There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy.” He added, “I asked Hillary about this, and she said, ‘No one has ever tried to influence me by helping you.’”  Hillary could still treat their friends and Clinton Foundation donors deferentially, though. The question is -  to what degree? Where does acceptance of help in one area imply wanting, or getting, something in return in another?

The Clinton Foundation has admitted disclosure errors regarding certain donations, and claims it will increase the frequency of its financial statements and limit large donations from foreign governments. These matters remain a red flag.

Corruption in politics is bi-partisan. The power of money is bi-partisan. Lines get crossed for alliance and sway reasons continuously. The Clintons want to portray themselves as having crossed no lines, despite the myriad of individuals, companies and countries that benefited from their relationship with them, and vice versa. Schweizer provides a damning portrait of elite and circumspect power and influence. He also acknowledges that, “Corruption of the kind” he describes in Clinton Cash “is very difficult to prove.”

Given that Hillary Clinton is running for President, the motives of these larger Clinton Foundation foreign donors and speaker fees to Bill Clinton while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, require greater inspection. As Schweizer stresses, “the pattern of behavior I have established is too blatant to ignore, and deserves legal scrutiny by those with investigation capabilities that go beyond journalism.”

At the end of Clinton Cash, Schweizer concludes that “money carries a serious weight, gather enough weight and you can intimidate most people into not questioning how you got it.” Whether the Clintons are corrupt, or successful opportunists requires a deeper federal investigation. Since new US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch first came to professional prominence as Bill Clinton’s appointee for US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, the possibility of a Department of Justice (DOJ) probe is remote. That’s a story for another time.

This article first appeared in Forbes.

Presidents and Their Proclamations on Mother's Day

More than a century ago, before it became the commercialized occasion it is today, Congress approved the second Sunday in May to be Mother’s Day. It declared that the American mother marked, “the greatest source of the country’s strength and inspiration.” American protocol requires each President to issue a new Mother’s Day proclamation every year.

On May 9, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson first officially proclaimed Mother’s Day, He directed the display of the American flag on Government buildings and citizen residences “as a public expression of love and reverences for the mothers of our country.”

Two years after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) took office, he decided that rather than issue a special proclamation, he would deliver a White House statement instead. On May 7, 1935, he said that tributes to American mothers should “come simply and spontaneously from our hearts.”

Still, delivery of the Mother’s Day proclamation remains part of American tradition. Presidents add their own thoughts about mothers into their annual proclamations., some more descriptive and emotional, evoking conditions of the time, some more perfunctory. These are some excerpts from their proclamations regarding Mother’s Day and mothers over the years:

President Harry S. Truman, April 17, 1945:

“Whereas in this year of the war’s greatest intensity we are ever mindful of their splendid courage and steadfast loyalty to the highest ideals of our democracy;”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, May 5, 1955:

“Whereas since the earliest days of our history American mothers have inspired our most exalted national ideals through their teachings and by example in their daily lives…”

President John F Kennedy, April 26, 1963:

“Whereas the strength of our Nation depends upon the strength of the American home, which is based on the virtues fostered by the mothers of our country; and Whereas the American mother plays a vital role by precept and example in building a strong family unit and in teaching our children to become good citizens…” 

President Lyndon B. Johnson, May 10, 1967:

“The fortitude to brave the frontier, the courage to bear our flag in battle, the compassion to help the needy and the weak at home and in distant lands—all these have come to our people through traits of character instilled by our mothers.”

President Richard M. Nixon, April 25, 1969:

“Nowhere in the complexity of the modern world are we more forcefully reminded of the power of love against hate, of creation over destruction, of life against death than in the gentle strength, the deep compassion of a mother.”

President Gerald R. Ford, May 5, 1976:

“Motherhood is more than a life role, it is a job that is continuously demanding and rewarding. A mother’s guidance is most significant in the growth of her children into responsible, self-reliant, understanding and productive human beings.”

President Jimmy Carter, April 1, 1980:

“Mother’s Day 1980 finds the always demanding role of being a mother made even more complex by the choices modern women have that were not available to women of previous generations. Whether they seek careers or work full time in the home, mothers contribute immensely to our Nation’s future by shaping the character of our children.”

President Ronald W. Reagan April 26, 1988:

“Generation after generation has measured love by the work and wonder of motherhood. For these gifts, ever ancient and ever new, we cannot pause too often to give thanks to mothers. As inadequate as our homage may be and as short as a single day is to express it — “What possible comparison was there,” a great saint wrote of his mother, “between the honor I showed her and the service she had rendered me?” — Mother’s Day affords us an opportunity to meet one of life’s happiest duties.”

President George H. W. Bush, May 10, 1990:

“For more than three-quarters of a century, we Americans have celebrated the second Sunday in May as Mother’s Day. On this day, we pause to honor all those women who, by virtue of giving birth, or through marriage or adoption, are mothers.

Today we no longer face the cruel test of world war, but we still do well to reflect upon the example provided by our mothers. Their courage, faithfulness, and generosity must never fail to strengthen and inspire us.”

President William J. Clinton; May 11, 1995:

“Americans’ vitality as a people flows from the health of our families. The heart and soul of our national life, mothers rise each day to take on myriad tasks, from driving a carpool to directing a city council. They are an anchor to generations past and a bridge to the world of the future. Meeting the challenge of motherhood is one of society’s greatest responsibilities, and those who do this work every day do a service to all humanity.”

President George W. Bush, May 8, 2008:

“We are especially thankful for the mothers who support their sons and daughters serving in our Armed Forces and for the mothers who bring honor to the uniform of the United States by defending our freedom at home and abroad.

Every child blessed with a mother’s love has been given one of life’s great gifts. On this Mother’s Day, we recognize the extraordinary contributions America’s mothers make to their children, their families, and our country.”

President Barack H. Obama, May 8, 2014:

“For over a century, Americans have come together to celebrate our first friends and mentors, our inspirations and constant sources of strength. Our mothers are breadwinners, community leaders, and pillars of family. They pioneer scientific discoveries, serve with valor in our Armed Forces, and represent our Nation in the loftiest halls of Government. Whether biological, adoptive, or foster, they play a singular role in our lives. Because they so often put everything above themselves, on Mother’s Day, we put our moms first.”

This piece appeared originally in Forbes. 

Hillary Comes to Hollywood for Money-Raising Shindigs

Hillary arrives in Hollywood today, to raise more than $2.5 million. Money and power mesh like peanut butter and jelly in Washington, Wall Street and Hollywood. The path toward influence is lined with the casualties or victories of status, wealth, and ego. Two presidential elections ago, Hollywood created its own underdog when it poured backing into the coffers of Barack Obama, shunning Hillary Clinton. But Hollywood loves a good comeback story in politics or on the silver screen. Enter Democratic presidential hopeful, Hillary and Hollywood money, Part II.

On May 7^th, three private fundraisers kick off the first of many legs of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election Hollywood campaign. First, there is a breakfast reception at the Westwood home of Public Affairs consultant, Catherine Unger. Then comes a luncheon at the Pacific Palisades abode of Steven and Dayna Bochco. (Steven Bochco Productions contributed $373,000 to Democrats over the last four campaign cycles.) The main evening event takes place at the Beverly Park estate of Chairman and CEO of Saban Capital Group, Haim Saban, and his wife, Cheryl. The couple and the Saban family foundation are listed in the $10-$25 million bracket of the Clinton Foundation contributors. The crème-de-la-crème of Tinsel town will clank their glasses for their ‘Champion’ of inequality far above the inequality rampaging the City of Angels.

Co-hosting will be an assortment of legacy media heavy hitters including the Sabans, Casey Wasserman, a trustee of the William J. Clinton Foundation, and Jeffrey Katzenberg. Event tickets are $2700, the maximum individual limit for primary period contributions. This would put Hillary Clinton’s May 7^th Hollywood haul at about $2.6 million. More important than these initial outlays though, is their promise of solidarity. Hollywood stands ready for Hillary.

Indeed, Hollywood is expected to unite for a chance to spend money on Clinton’s campaign, in contrast to its prior loyalty abscess, which accelerated into cacophonous Barack Obama support early in the 2008 election cycle. The question is – will it spend as much? That answer will depend on the GOP and whether the rest of the Democratic field opens up, as with Senator Bernie Sanders’ April 29^th declaration that he would run for president as a Democrat.

The Bigwig: Jeffrey Katzenberg

According to the Washington-based non-partisan, non-profit research group, Center for Responsive Politics, DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg reigns supreme over Hollywood glitterati in terms of most consistent and varied monetary support for the Democratic Party and its anointed ones.

Most people think of political contributions in terms of individual or aggregated corporate donations. That’s just the tips of the iceberg. Money flows into Capitol Hill in many forms. These include donating directly to candidates and bundling (or tapping all your rich friends and associates to contribute under your name before handing over a mega check). More ways to fork over dough consist of contributing to political action committees (PACs) or super PACs that do the same thing once removed, and ‘other’ avenues like paying $50K a pop to attend the Inaugural Ball, something stars such as Halle Berry, Sharon Stone, Neil Diamond and Jamie Foxx did for Obama’s 2009 victory gala.

Katzenberg was the top Hollywood bundler for Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. Last year, shifting gears back to prep for the 2016 election, he co-hosted a fundraiser featuring Hillary Clinton that raised $2.1 million for the Democrats.

Hillary's Money and Social Circles

Hillary has been comfortable in these sorts of circles for decades, even before the days when Barbra Streisand serenaded her husband, former President Bill Clinton during his 1996 re-election bid, ensuring enthusiastic media coverage in the process. Then, A-listers like David Geffen and Steven Spielberg corralled Hollywood’s elite to pay up to $12,500 a piece to convene in an opulent Mediterranean-style manor, netting the Democratic Party around $3.5 million. Geffen also hosted intimate dinners, in which President Clinton and a dozen power-guests, such as Steve Jobs, Steve Tisch, and Lew Wasserman, former MCA studio chairman would mingle.

Hillary’s own fortune pales in comparison to some of these players. On a relative scale, she is more like the 99 percent to the 1 percent bracket of the Hollywood billionaires, but at those echelons, such distinctions get blurred in lieu of power.

Her wealth still places her well into the 1/10th of 1 percent territory relative to the rest of the American population. In 2012, Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, ranked the third richest person in the executive branch, with a net worth of approximately $15.3 million. Her successor, John Kerry sits comfortably in first place with a net worth of $103 million as of 2013. (Obama ranks 8^th wealthiest with $4.6 million.)

Obama’s Bundlers

Hillary Clinton is hoping to surpass the total of Obama’s contribution figures, including from Hollywood. In 2008, Obama and Senator John McCain posted bundlers by ranges, with the top ranges designated "$500,000 or more." Together, 536 elites directed at least $75.75 million to McCain, and 558 directed at least $76.25 million to Obama. Jeffrey Katzenberg topped Obama’s 2008 bundler list. David Geffen from DreamWorks SKG was also in the $500,000 category.

Money flowed more plentifully for Obama’s 2012 re-election bid against Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, in the most expensive presidential campaign in US history. Again, the distinction between the wealthiest and everyone else was pronounced.

The top 100 individual donors to super PACs (plus their spouses) represented 1.0 percent of all individual donors to super PACs, but raised 67 percent of the super PAC (or ‘Outside Group’) money. All told, 769 elites handed $186.5 million to Obama's re-election efforts or the DNC. The TV/Movies/Music industry coughed up $12.1 million, not quite Wall Street’s levels of $22.85 million, but still commendable.

Jeffrey Katzenberg, who led Obama’s bundler group in general, with a total of $2.12 million to him or the Democrats from 1990-2012, was again in the $500,000 bucket, alongside Barry and Wendy Meyer of Warner Brothers, Colleen Bell of Bell-Phillip TV Productions, Mai Lassiter and Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith of Overbrook Entertainment, and John Emerson from Capital Group Companies.

Katzenberg ranked 18^th in the 2012 composite list across industries of Top Individuals Funding Outside Spending Groups with $3.15 million. Other Hollywood A-listers on that list included Director Steven Spielberg (who ranks in the $1-$5 million contributors group for the Clinton Foundation  with $1.1 million, Actor Morgan Freeman with $1 million, Comedian Bill Maher with $1 million, Haim Saban with $1.16 million, and billionaire Jerold A. Perenchio, CEO of Chartwell Partners with $4.1 million.

By early 2015, DreamWorks Animation announced cuts of 500 employees as part of its “strategic” plan to restructure its feature film business. It's a safe bet that those 500 former employees will not be attending many elite political festivities in Beverly Hills. Jeffrey and Marilyn Katzenberg dropped to 97th of the 100 top individual contributors for 2014, with $793,000. Hillary Clinton may provide grounds for a leap.

Hillary’s Celebrity and Celebrities

If it were up to Twitter and Facebook, Hillary would be running the White House already. She has more Twitter followers and Facebook likes than any Republican candidate that has already announced a bid for the Oval Office, plus Jeb Bush. She scores about 3.46 million Twitter followers and 2.1 million total Facebook likes.

On the GOP side, Ted Cruz tops the social media list with about 844,000 Twitter followers and also about 2.1 million Facebook likes. Rand Paul has 651,000 Twitter followers and 1.9 million Facebook likes. Marco Rubio has 732,000 Twitter followers and 1.1 million Facebook likes. Jeb Bush lags the GOP social media race with just 183,000 Twitter followers and 172,000 Facebook likes.

Aside from Hollywood’s legacy political-donor leaders and established celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Hillary is attracting a new more youthful demographic to her side. Lena Dunham offered Twitter support, but no funds as of yet. Kimberly Kardashian West donated $15,000 to the DNC last fall, under her company Kimsa Princess, Inc. and may come out publicly to support Hilary Clinton. America Ferrera backed Clinton in 2008 and will again. Olivia Wilde endorsed her. So did Scandal’s Kerry Washington and singer, Ariana Grande.

In 2008, after raising $229.4 million (about one-tenth the amount her camp claims she will raise this time), Clinton left the 2008 presidential race in early June. Of her top dozen corporate donor sources, Wall Street came through for her over Hollywood. JPM Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch all placed above 21^st Century Fox at 12th place.

According to a customized analysis for Forbes by the Center for Responsive Politics, only 12 people made both Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s top 50 Hollywood contributors list. And though the majority of those donors gave to both Clinton and Obama, only four of them ranked in both Clinton’s and Obama’s top 20. Those were Jeffrey and Marilyn Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and Clarence Avant, CEO of Interior Music Corp. It will be Clinton’s hope to raise that crossover rate.

In politics, business and media, bruised egos heal quickly when money is concerned. Big Hollywood players will still back the Democratic candidate they think will win. That’s how the game of money, politics and social status works. The smaller ones will follow.

This piece originally appeared in Forbes on May 4th.