Last week, when the Clintons released their tax returns, it came out that one of the largest fees paid to Bill Clinton came from a charitable fundraising event organized by London socialite Renu Mehta. In 2006, Mehta organized the “Fortune Forum” to encourage Britain’s super-rich to give more to charity. The event was a success, drawing Lakshmi Mittal, Michael Douglas and others, but the overhead was very high, with a third of the money raised going to pay Clinton’s speaking fee:
The event raised about $1.5 million and brought together dozens of billionaires, celebrities and activists … But success came with a steep price. Fundraising costs consumed more than half of the proceeds, with $450,000 going to Clinton as a speaking fee, one of the largest he has collected as personal income. [Link]
What’s weird about this is that Bill charged this charitable event almost double what he charged other groups in the same period, even though one of the other groups was a for-profit partnership:
Clinton’s fee for his Fortune Forum appearance dwarfed the $280,000 the former president charged for a speech earlier in the day in London sponsored by a for-profit partnership and the $280,000 he received the next day for a speech in Dublin. [Link]
The outsized speaking fee makes me wonder if this was an indirect method of contributing to the Clinton campaign. While political donations are capped at $2,300, there is no limit on how much of one’s own money (or one’s spouse’s money) can be spent. So a payment to Bill Clinton, while taxable, is exempt from campaign finance regulation, although it may serve the same purpose. This suspicion is made a bit stronger by the fact that Clinton’s appearance was arranged by one of their key fundraisers, the controversial hotelier and restauranteur Sant Singh Chatwal.
This is one of the things that makes campaign finance regulation tricky – money finds a way to a candidate when people want to give it. However, with the FEC out of action this election (it has insufficient members to constitute a quorum due to gridlock), the line between business deal and campaign gift is unlikely to be clarified any time soon.
Continue reading →