Even the most ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton must concede that the latest revelation regarding her connection to the Clinton Foundation — that numerous big donors to the charity appear to have had ready access to her when she served as secretary of state — doesn't reflect well on the Democratic nominee for president. It's entirely possible that many of these affluent individuals and business owners would have gotten into her office anyway, but the appearance of "pay to play" exists nonetheless.
Such ethical entanglements seem to have dogged Ms. Clinton on a rather consistent basis — whether it's taking large speaking fees from Wall Street banks or using a private email server (and then struggling to explain the nature of that email) while serving as President Barack Obama's top foreign policy adviser. None have produced the proverbial "smoking gun," a clear case of quid pro quo (or an offense worthy of prosecution), but enough of them have stacked up to raise serious questions about her judgment.
The problem with this pattern of behavior is that, particularly in the context of the ethically-murky world of Washington insider politics, it's not so cut and dried. What the latest report from the Associated Press revealed is that at least 85 of 154 people with private interests who met with her at the State Department had either given or pledged large sums to her charity. Add that to email exchanges that demonstrate that her aides were looking out for the interests of foundation contributors (calling one generous Middle Eastern crown prince a "good friend of ours," for example) is more than a little embarrassing.
But is giving to the Clinton Foundation tantamount to a bribe? No, it is not. By all accounts, the Clinton Foundation does remarkable work, raising money for 11 separate charities working on such issues as climate change, global health and wellness and economic development. That Bill and Hillary Clinton have devoted so much of their time and talent to such philanthropy (paying for, among other things, HIV medication to children in developing countries) is to their credit and does not equate to money-grubbing as some critics have implied.
Meanwhile, the possibility of a donor getting special access to a politician is not exactly an uncommon event inside the Capital Beltway. Ms. Clinton met with thousands of world leaders with no connection to her family charity. It will be amusing to see how far members of Congress will go in criticizing Ms. Clinton given that nearly all of them — should their daily meeting schedules and telephone logs be similarly analyzed — likely extend courtesies to major campaign donors, too. At least the Clinton donations go to charity; donations to political campaigns have a far less noble and far more self-interested purpose.
Finally, that the Clintons have already pledged to remove themselves from their charity and have it stop accepting foreign donations should Ms. Clinton be elected president suggests they at least recognize a conflict of interest, however belatedly.
Yet here's the really frustrating part: As troubling as these ethical lapses may be, they pale in comparison to the buffoonery that emanates each day from the Republican presidential nominee and his latest clown car of top advisors. Donald Trump has reportedly been seeking campaign donations from affluent foreigners, too (earlier this summer, Trump donor solicitations in the United Kingdom were openly decried as spam on the floor of the House of Commons). The reality TV show star's ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin are so obvious that interference by the Kremlin in the fall elections isn't just some bizarre conspiracy theory — whether through computer hacking or public statements by the KGB-trained strongman — it's already happening.
Under different circumstances, Americans might want to send a message to Ms. Clinton that they would prefer a president who doesn't mix private and public interests so readily. But how could any high-minded voter choose Mr. Trump who hasn't even provided tax returns for public inspection let alone demonstrated sound judgment in foreign affairs? If Ms. Clinton fails the transparency test, her opponent is more like the lead-lined door that even Superman's x-ray vision can't penetrate. From his relationships to suppliers, his bankruptcies, the dubious Trump University scam to his daily fact-checked failings (his recent claim that black youth unemployment in the U.S. is 59 percent or 40 points above reality being the latest whopper), Mr. Trump has little standing to call anyone else "crooked." That doesn't excuse Ms. Clinton's ethical insensitivities, but it certainly puts them in a proper, and sobering, context.