begin quote from:
In a frantic bit of cleanup on Tuesday, Donald Trump’s transition team downplayed what appeared …
TRENDING
Inaugurations Are Ethically Problematic. Trump Is Just Taking It Much Further.
For $250,000, you can have an “intimate policy discussion” with a cabinet appointee.
Lucas Jackson / Reuters
In a frantic bit of cleanup on Tuesday, Donald Trump’s transition team downplayed what appeared to be a pay-for-play scheme surrounding the upcoming inauguration.
A spokesperson for the president-elect said that, contrary to reports,
Trump’s two eldest sons were not offering access to their father during
next month’s inauguration weekend in exchange for $1 million donations
to conservation charities. The foundation that had cooked up the scheme
(which included hunting and fishing expeditions) was just floating an
“initial” concept of an idea, the spokesperson said. Beyond that,
neither Eric Trump nor Donald Trump Jr. were “involved in any capacity,”
nor was the president-elect “aware of the event or the details
pertaining to it.’’
Nevertheless, the episode still rubbed government ethicists the wrong way, and not just because Eric Trump remained on the board of directors
of the charity behind the proposal. For these ethicists, the concern is
that the Jan. 20 Trump inauguration writ large has become a vehicle for
those willing to pay the right price to gain access to the top echelons
of the incoming administration.
Even as the conservation
charity idea appeared to crash before takeoff, the official inaugural
committee was offering an underwriter benefits package that allowed
well-heeled donors an audience with the president and his team. For $1
million, for example, a donor received benefits including access to an
“exclusive event” with Cabinet appointees and House and Senate
leadership, along with an “intimate dinner” with Vice-President-elect Mike Pence.
Even those just willing to dole out $250,000, the gift was “an intimate
policy discussion and dinner with select Cabinet appointees” among
other goodies, including an opportunity to meet “the ladies of the first
families” and “an elegant dinner in Washington, D.C., with special
appearances” by the Trumps and Pences.
Inaugural Committee
Richard
Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007, called
the Trump inauguration benefits package an example of “paying for
access.” So too does his colleague at the organization Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Norman Eisen, who served as
Chief Ethics Counsel for President Barack Obama.
“But
this is not just a Trump problem, this is the problem of big money in
politics,” Eisen said. “Both parties raise big money around the
Inauguration― and around everything else as well. The system has run
amok.”
A
spokesperson for the Trump inauguration committee defended the benefits
packages as a chance for the president-elect to thank those who ponied up the $65 million to $75 million
they are aiming to raise to run an inauguration. Far from settings ripe
for influence-peddling, they represented “a chance to thank our
underwriters, whose generosity is helping bring the inauguration to life
for all Americans, while honoring the diverse and qualified leaders the
president-elect has appointed to various positions within government,”
the spokesperson said.
Still,
it appears that the Trump team is pushing the ethical envelop more than
its immediate predecessor. In 2008, Obama’s inaugural committee unilaterally restricted
individual contributions to $50,000 and prohibited corporations from
giving. Four years later, the president’s team loosened the restrictions
― wary that they would have trouble raising the cash needed to host an
inauguration. Corporations gave. And individuals wrote checks far
exceeding $50,000.
But
the benefits they received for those checks fell short of the elegant
“candlelight dinners” that Trump is now offering. A fundraising appeal obtained by The Associated Press
noted that premium donors ($250,000 for individuals and $1 million for
corporations) got four tickets to the inaugural ball, seats in the
bleacher for the parade, tickets to a children’s concert and a meeting
with the president’s finance team to discuss “the road ahead.”
Trump is exacerbating the problem with his refusal to address his conflicts or even release his taxes so we know what the conflicts are.
“We did not do anything that
was ‘come meet policy leaders’ as a quid pro quo for giving the
inauguration committees,” said an official who worked on the 2013
inauguration but was not authorized by his current employer to discuss
the matter. “If anything we tried to keep those two streams as clean as
possible.”
“The thing you need to
realize is that the main check you have on what you can take is really
perception,” the official added. “There are no rules for inaugurations.
It is the wild west in terms of fundraising. It is about what signal you
want to send out as you put together the first major public event of
your presidency. But it is a hard line to walk because you also have to
raise a lot of money very fast.”
In
going further than Obama in trying to lure donors to his inauguration,
Trump risks eroding his promise to “drain the swamp” once in power. That
being said, his own allies have begun admitting that “drain the swamp”
was more a slogan than an actual ethos.
“I’m told he now just disclaims that. He now says it was cute, but he doesn’t want to use it anymore,” former Speaker Newt Gingrich
said of the rally cry. “I’ve noticed on a couple of fronts, like people
chanting ‘lock her up,’ that he’s in a different role now and maybe he
feels that as president, as the next president of the United States,
that he should be marginally more dignified than talking about
alligators in swamps.”
Beyond
the sense that Trump isn’t all that invested in government ethics,
watchdogs are also concerned about the sheer number of possibilities for
the incoming president to blur ethical lines. On the underwriter
benefits document, for example, the Inaugural Committee says that those
buying packages would receive “priority booking” at “premier” or
“select” inaugural “hotel(s).”
Which
hotel these donors will get is left unmentioned, but it raised the
possibility that some of the funding meant for the inauguration could
end up going toward booking rooms in the Trump International Hotel
Washington, D.C. A spokesperson didn’t return a request for
clarification. But the larger point wasn’t lost on Eisen.
“Trump
is exacerbating the problem with his refusal to address his conflicts
or even release his taxes so we know what the conflicts are,” he said in
an email. “That sends a message of anything goes in the dark which
seems to be making things worse.”
Want more updates from Sam Stein? Sign up for his newsletter, Spam Stein, here.
No comments:
Post a Comment