Clinton Foundation: Too many questions, too little oversight

Re “Clinton Foundation does great, important work” letter by Gary Ling.

I must set the record straight. As a retired USAID employee, with many years of experience in assistance programs similar to what the Clinton Foundation is doing, it must be noted that, although the Clinton charity on the surface seems to have the heartfelt intention of doing good work through its charitable operations, it is the wrong place, the wrong time and in the wrong venue.

There is a great lack of oversight, and it involves the U.S. State Department. I consider that very bad form. Government bodies are meant to be accountable. Private foundations are generally exempt from oversight, and that's why we are hearing that pay-for-play State Department song being played over and over again.

Taxpayer-funded assistance has transparency, like other federal programs. Assistance programs are authorized by Congress, with the advice and consent of the American public, signed into law by the president, and federal funds are appropriated to operate the authorized programs. If they fail, they go away, along with the politicians that voted the programs into existence.

Federal assistance is totally transparent and accountable to the American public. That approach eliminates the spoils system of yesteryear. Everyone's on the same page. Comparing that to the Clinton Foundation, we have the appearance of a secretary of state involved in a dual role as Cabinet-level appointee directing the activity of a private foundation with no oversight. That seems like the fox in the hen house.

Good cover, but how deep do those roots go? No transparency means it's ripe for abuse.

Most concerning is that we don't even know the complete donor list. Are these donors friend or foe of the American public? Foreign or domestic? Democratic or otherwise? At a minimum, a complete list of donors should be publicized.

The foundation is certainly beholding to those list of donors now, whether we like it or not. Where does the U.S. State Department stand in this? Remember, favors get called in, and that's why we are hearing the pay-for-play song to loudly now. Why does Bill Clinton say he will step down from the Clinton Foundation, and no longer accept foreign donations , if his wife is elected? What happens if she does not get elected?

Extensive federal contracting regulations, guidelines for grant recipients, and loans to developing countries, not to mention audit coverage, among other mandatory and ethical standards have taken years to develop and refine, and for a very good reason. It's that oversight that prevents the so call pay-for-play.

Federal contracting laws prevent that. The secretary of state should know that. Why is she so closely involved with a private foundation to begin with? There is nothing wrong with a bequest to the U.S. Government as a benevolent act with a directive to provide assistance to Syrian refugees, for example. The Gates Foundation comes to mind here, but it doesn’t directly involve cabinet-level appointees. Arms length must be the rule of the game.

Whether pay-for-play is true or not, the Clinton Foundation should be able to stand up to an exhaustive examination of the operations, most importantly, a list of the donors. That should be public record, since the U.S. State Department was directly involved in the operation. Such an examination to put the rumors to rest, so we could all move on.

The writer lives in Conway.

This story was originally published September 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM with the headline "Clinton Foundation: Too many questions, too little oversight."