I was researching presidential access for money for my book, Master of Deceit, when the news aired somewhat of a déjà vu.
Today’s news included a report that a post-inauguration event will offer access to the now President-Elect Donald J. Trump the day after his inauguration. Cost for the event ranges from $25,000 and $1 million and sparked a new discussion on the old pay-to-play argument. The event is being put on by a foundation created by Trumps’ sons, Donald Jr., and Eric Trump.
It smacked of coincidence with what I was working on.
My pending book unravels how a former Army Intelligence Officer and Harvard Law School graduate pulled off a swindle that took more than $100 million intended for veterans and funneled the money into politics; his generosity earned him a private meeting with President George W. Bush in the Oval Office in 2008 as the president was leaving the White House.
A fingerprint search could have shown that the scam artist (who entered the White House under his alias Bobby Thompson) was wanted for espionage under his real name, John Donald Cody. Can’t think of a better example of why we should question how money can facilitate access if a man wanted for espionage is allowed to cozy up to a president. Thompson’s Catch-Me-If-You-Canesque story including how he pulled off the scam and where the money went is part of the book.
But news of Trump’s event got me thinking. Is this the new norm? Before I get too far in this, let me be very clear. This column is not about one side or another. It’s amazing how access for high-level donors happens with both Republicans and Democrats.
Look back over the last 20 years and see what I mean. These are just a few random examples, though, there are others:
- In 1997, President Bill Clinton was accused of a practice that allowed big donors the right to stay in the Lincoln bedroom. He also combatted reports of granting golf games and morning jogs with other donors.
- President George W. Bush had events that also drew suspicions. Not only did he host the private gathering for donors that scam artist Bobby Thompson in for a private reception in the Oval Office, he came under fire for policy changes that benefited donors and how his presidential library took $1 million or more Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates after he left office.
- Then who can forget when the New York Times revealed donors to the Republican Governor’s Association and the size of their checks? The story was facilitated by work from a Democrat-leaning group, and led others to charge it is evidence of how corporations use money to buy influence. Not to be outdone, the Republicans then released documents from the Democratic Governors’ Association showing donors and benefits like preferential seating at policy discussions.
- President Obama has faced accusations of his own including a report from MapLight, a website that shows money’s influence on politics, in 2016. The website exposed how all of the donors to the Obama Foundation who gave $100,000 or more have been invited to the White House for events with the President.
- Not to be left out, questions about Hilliary Clinton and the Clinton foundation have been almost common place since 2015. One such accusation was criticism for accepting donations from foreign governments, which stopped when she was secretary of state, but resumed in 2015 as she got ready for her presidential run.
- Now allegations are being raised against Trump before the event takes place.
Instead of simply just rehashing how much it took to stay the night in the Lincoln bedroom, or how what a $1 million ticket could buy to be with Trump the day after his election, why can’t we evolve this into a discussion about making it stop?
I am not knocking those who uncover the exist of the events by any means. But it just strikes me, how time and time again after something is exposed in the media, the discussion seemingly ends there.
Is it shocking to see what money can buy? Absolutely. Explicit quid pro quos – money in direct exchange for benefits – are illegal and the FBI hunts to prove such cases all the time. News by definition should be something unusual, something novel, or something rare. Reports of access have been around for more than 20 years.
So, in addition to reporting when it happens, when will there be a discussion about how or whether it should stop?
Photo credit: Shannon Young