Issue date: 3/13/08 Section: Editorial/Opinion

There has been a lot of fuss in the media over the last week about Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) refusal to release her recent tax returns. The Clinton campaign calls it a political witch-hunt - an example of the worst kind of personal attacks. Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) campaign calls it a request for the level of honesty and transparency Obama has demonstrated throughout his career in politics. Who is right?

Let's take a look at the facts we already know.

We know the Clintons left the White House with a net worth of approximately $1.25 million and their net worth today is estimated at around $50 million. We know Bill made about $10 million on the speaking circuit, and both Clintons made a few hundred thousand dollars from book royalties.

But we also know $10 million plus a few hundred thousand does not equal $50 million and does not account for the $5 million of Hillary's own money she was able to donate to her campaign when it went broke in early February. The rest is still a mystery.

We do know the Clintons have been adamantly opposed to releasing any information about the nature, amount or origin of donations to Bill's new presidential library, and they were adamantly opposed to the release of any of the thousands of pages of documents detailing his decision to grant 140 pardons on his last day in office.

We also know it has been discovered that a fugitive, Mark Rich, was one of those people pardoned by Clinton, and that his ex-wife donated nearly $500,000 to Clinton campaigns and Bill's new Presidential library.

We also know a House of Represen-tatives committee hearing discovered that Bill Clinton pardoned two convicted felons - one for drug charges and the other for mail fraud and perjury - after each paid Hillary's brother, Hugh Rodham, about $200,000. For the record, the Clintons claim they knew nothing about these payments and no wrongdoing occurred.

In December, one of Hillary's biggest fundraisers, Norman Hsu, was indicted on felony charges for making threats to his victims that their failure to make his requested political donations would endanger their ongoing relationship with Hsu's national investment company. In the interest of fairness, it is still unclear if the Clintons were ever aware of this scam.

Even more perplexing is Hillary's near obsession in 2000 with her opponent's reluctance to release his tax returns during her first campaign for Senate in New York. She called his withholding of the information "frankly disturbing" and even dispatched campaign employees to her opponent's rallies to heckle him about his tax returns. A reasonable person would find it hypocritical to demand transparency from a Republican Senate candidate in 2000 and then deny the voters that same transparency as a presidential candidate today.

These are some of the reasons people have begun desiring to know where the Clintons get their riches.

Hillary can declare this a political witch-hunt by calling the request for honesty and transparency "Ken Starr politics" all she wants, but the fact remains this transparency has become common practice among today's Democratic politicians. The American people deserve to know where their leaders' vast fortunes come from, particularly when such questionable practices surround a presidential candidate's financial and political dealings, a candidate who has lifted the claim from her opponent that she is running to change the way politics in Washington work.

This hypocritical refusal to act with any principled consistency, and the denial of an opportunity to show the American people that scandal and controversy - a constant hallmark of the last Clinton presidency - will not dominate the politics of a prospective second Clinton presidency, is yet more proof that Hillary Clinton is willing to do and say anything to get elected.

It's a continuation of the Clinton mindset of entitlement - Hillary feels her time has come and she seems annoyed that this new guy is messing up her plans. From this mindset stems the rationalization that dishonest campaigning is simply a justifiable means to an end, and all that matters is that she eventually takes her rightful place at the throne - err, the Oval Office.

Far from the refreshing change in politics that she claims to represent. Far from the refreshing change in politics her opponent has consistently demonstrated.

Barnekow is senior political science major and guest columnist for The Spectator.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools