Presidents MUST disclose library donors

One of the biggest problems in our government is money – in campaigns, in lobbying, in securing favors, and even presidential pardons, a controversy that arises every four or eight years. I recently read a WaPo editorial about the amount of money presidents raise for their libraries, and the amounts run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. What's worse - presidents are free to raise this money while still in power.

It doesn’t take a genius to see where the problem lies here. If you write President George W. Bush a check for $5 million for his library, wouldn’t you expect at least a small favor in return? Of course you would it's only human to expect quid pro quo – something for something.

As the editorial stated, Presidents Reagan and Clinton both took in very large contributions for their libraries, and virtually every donor expects something in return. In Clinton’s case, that favor was the granting of a presidential pardon(s). (At left, the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Arkansas)

This absurdity must be stopped. And it’s not a partisan issue – any president, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, should have to disclose the identities of large donors. It’s rumored that President Bush will be raising upward of $500 million for his presidential library. Fine, if companies from the oil and gas lobby aren’t putting up $50 million apiece, looking for return favors. (And don’t think for a second that scenario is unlikely with this administration.)

For this reason, I urge you to write both of your U.S. Senators and your U.S. House Representative. In 2002, a bill passed the House that required Bush and all future presidents to disclose the identity of donors over $200. Of course, at the time, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The bill died a slow death. It’s time for Congress to revisit this issue, now, before President Bush begins raising half a billion for his monument to himself.

Here is a sample letter that I wrote to one of my Senators – Arlen Specter. Feel free to copy/paste the text and adapt it into a letter of your own. If you don’t know the name(s) and address(es) of your elected representatives, check the upper right-hand side of my blog, where you can find them quickly and easily. I will let all of you know any responses I get from anyone I write to about this issue.

##

R.J.C.
Philadelphia, PA 19130


March 16, 2007

Hon. Senator Arlen Specter
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-3802

Dear Senator Specter:
A recent Washington Post editorial highlighted a problem that I strongly feel requires immediate attention by all members of Congress.

According to the article, presidents currently are not required to disclose the identities of donors for their presidential libraries. This totally unacceptable and indefensible loophole must be closed, now.

It’s no stretch to image the possibility of a corporation or individual donating hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to outgoing presidents for their libraries. It’s only natural to assume that donors of large amounts of cash expect a favor in return, which might take the form of favorable legislation, government contracts, ambassadorships, or even a presidential pardon. (In fact, reports of this likely scenario surfaced after President Clinton left office, but I’m sure he’s not the only one.)

With the costs of presidential libraries skyrocketing, the potential for quid pro quo situations will only increase with each successive presidency. (I’ve read that President Bush’s presidential library will cost in the neighborhood of $500 million.) While I realize the historic value of presidential libraries, I strongly feel the overriding concern ought to be the potential harm from allowing opaque donations to continue.

I’m strongly in favor of placing a limit of $200 limit on anonymous donations to presidential libraries, as originally proposed in 2002 by reps. Henry A. Waxman, Rahm Emanuel, William Lacy Clay, Todd R. Platts and John J. Duncan Jr. Their proposal would mandate disclosure of library contributions greater than $200, not only during a president's term but for four years thereafter. In short, all donations over $200 should be transparent and open to the public, without equivocation and with no exceptions.

As you know, the federal government limits the amount of money individuals and businesses can donate to a candidate for office for many reasons, and one is to avoid undue influence that generous donors may receive; our government should implement the same safeguards for donors of our presidential libraries.

In short, I would like to know what you plan to do about this unfortunate and inexcusable loophole. For your convenience, I’ve enclosed the Washington Post editorial for your perusal. I’ve also written Senator Casey, Representative Robert A. Brady, and the leadership of both Houses of Congress.

Thanks very much for your time and attention in this important matter, Senator Specter. I look forward to hearing from you.

Warm regards,

RJ

cc:
file
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
House Minority Leader John Boehner
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Senator Robert Casey
U.S. Representative Robert A. Brady

##

The The Washington Post editorial follows, which ran this past Tuesday, March 13.

. . . And Library Donors, Too

President Bush, and his successors, should be required to say who's footing the bill.

The Washington Post
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

IMAGINE THAT a sitting president solicits millions of dollars in contributions for a pet project. The money, in six- and seven-figure checks, can come from companies that may be seeking government contracts or trying to loosen regulations, from foreign governments that may be trying to curry favor with the president, from wealthy individuals who may want ambassadorial appointments or other government action. Or the donations may be motivated by unselfish support for the president - there is no way to tell, because the money can be collected in secret, with no limits on amounts or sources, and no requirement for public disclosure.

This is not some far-fetched scenario - it is an appalling, legal and bipartisan norm of conduct in the final years of any second-term administration as the incumbent president begins to prepare for life out of office and to make plans for a presidential library.

Libraries cost money - and that money is, somehow, easier to raise while you are still president. Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan before him, amassed millions in pledges this way - including, as it turned out in Mr. Clinton's case, from donors who then lobbied for, and secured, presidential pardons. Now, President Bush is starting the process for his presidential library, with a reported price tag of $500 million. Mr. Bush, too, may collect the checks in secret; a library spokesman says no decision has been made.

Presidential libraries are not ordinary charities, and the ordinary concerns about preserving the privacy of charitable contributions do not apply to them. They are hybrid institutions, built and endowed with private funds but ultimately public property run by the National Archives. There is an easy remedy for this inexcusable loophole, pushed by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), Todd R. Platts (R-Pa.) and John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.).

Their proposal would mandate disclosure of library contributions greater than $200 - not only during a president's term but for four years thereafter. An earlier version passed the House once, in 2002, only to languish in the Senate.

Now, having been approved by Mr. Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, a bill is again headed to the House floor.

The Senate has already signaled its understanding of the importance of revealing such donations. Its version of lobbying reform would require registered lobbyists to report library gifts. But history teaches that broader disclosure is necessary: The Senate rule, for example, wouldn't have revealed the gifts relevant to Mr. Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

It is imperative, this time around, that the measure be passed and signed into law - by the first president whose fundraising it would bring into the sunlight.