[genericone]

Very true, could you imagine the political implications if the Trump organization DID reject the Chinese investment into an Indonesian state project? If acceptance of money is, ipso facto, a sign of political corruption, then would blocking the exchange of money between 2 sovereign nations be considered meddling in foreign economies? What intentions could be read from an act of rejection? How much of the invested money would have actually reached the Trump organization? The Trump organization is far too tied to the Trump presidency for comfort. But this has been true of the Clinton foundation during Bill and Barack's terms as well.

As an aside, the president should first and foremost, represent the nation's best interests. But I can't determine what Trump holds in higher regard, the office of the president, or himself. I imagine most people think being president of the US would be the highest position in the world. For any politician at least, US or foreign, the top of their food chain is the US President. But how does a billionaire like Bezos, with a business and news-media empire, view being president? Does someone like that look down or up? What I mean is, would and should a billionaire 'play' president the same way a politician would 'play' president? My imagination is that a billionaire would want to become president in order to use the office to accomplish political goals not possible simply with money, versus a career politician who might simply see the US Presidency as a goal in itself. At the end of the day, both want to see their desired outcomes come to fruition, both want to be in a position of governmental power to make their wants happen. Which one is better for the nation?

[mikeash]

I don’t understand what you’re saying about what Clinton Foundation. It wasn’t formed until after Bill left office and as far as I know Obama wasn’t involved. The worst Obama did was have a book people could buy.

[genericone]

I had to look it up since I didn't know enough about it, but it looks like the Clinton Foundation was set up in 1997, at the beginning of Bill's 2nd term. As for mentioning Obama's term, what I meant by that was that since Hillary was Secretary of State at the time, there's definite potential for conflict of interest. I used wikipedia for my info.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

[mikeash]

From that article: “The origins of the foundation go back to 1997, when then-president Bill Clinton was focused mostly on fundraising for the future Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Arkansas. He founded the William J. Clinton Foundation in 2001 following the completion of his presidency.”

[genericone]

Whether its a charity/fundraiser/guest-lecture/business-deal, I imagine it still works the same way, regardless of the stated focus or purpose of said thing: Money goes in, Influence comes out (or Favor_B in exchange for Favor_A). I have neither money nor influence, and the favors I can grant are minuscule, so I can't tell you what ratio of Money:Influence works for powerful people, but I can at least say that they are not inversely proportional. The more you give, the higher your surface area becomes to receive something and the more offended you can act if you don't receive something quid pro quo.

[candiodari]

Here's one thing the public purse gave to the Clinton foundation:

https://nypost.com/2016/10/02/bill-clintons-executive-suite-...

(Of course the real power behind money isn't the money itself, the ownership, but the power to use it. So for taxpayer's money, the power comes from the mayor, governor or president and to a lesser extent congress/senate and their lower level equivalents. For companies the power behind the money is management/directors/CEO, and to a (much) lesser extent shareholders. So one should always make the distinction between ownership and the ability to control something. The control is much better than ownership, for one thing, control is not taxed)

And before you say "but that's the president". Well we know about Bill Clinton, don't we. He's the sort of man that forces people in his employ to service him sexually. So clearly, he's the sort of guy that takes "one service for another" pretty damn (in fact illegally) far.

Now you can say "but Bush, and Obama (and even Trump) are better than that". Perhaps, but first, not likely, and secondly even if it's just the one, the results will be similar, perhaps a bit more limited in time at best.

One wonders just what level of favor that buys, but it must have been ... well let's say at least $20 million worth of favor. If you can put a price on it at all, as this is a property that doesn't get taxed, even gets maintained and serviced by the government for free and normally wouldn't be available at all. So that price is the cost price of this thing, actually buying this as a private individual would have been at the very least 10 times that.

[mikeash]

What do you mean, “the public purse”? That was funded entirely with donations.