the clinton foundation scandal is biased and cynical -- and we should embrace it wholeheartedly

at issue is the suspicion that a few people made contributions to the clinton foundation and got access to hillary as secretary of state as a result.


consider that congress routinely and unabashedly has people make contributions to their own campaign war chests and openly acknowledge that they get access in return. their argument is that there's no problem with access, not even the appearance of a problem when it's only access that's being bought. it's only when it becomes a "quid pro quo" with an official power that there's a problem.


what hillary congresscritters do routinely is objectively worse, because the only real beneficiary of the pay-for-access scheme is the congresscritter. in the case of the clinton foundation, the direct beneficiaries are the millions of people who get all manner of aid through its non-profit, charitable activities. you have to go through some derivative arguments to claim that hillary gets some sort of vague additional clout because of those contributions.


that said, the whole pay-for-access thing that congress engages in routinely stinks anyway, so we should take this opportunity to call for ethical reform regarding contributions and access.

sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, in this case. if they want to argue that hillary's ties to a global non-profit is a problem, then surely congresscritters' ties to their own campaign war chests is a bigger problem.

lets seize this moment to rally for comprehensive congressional campaign reform. let's not let them hold hillary to a higher standard.