Hillary Clinton was cheered by her partisans a couple of weeks ago when she indignantly demanded that "the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money" into presidential campaigns be stopped. But that was a couple of weeks ago. Now it turns out, to quote an AP dispatch, her big Super Political Action Committee has accepted a million-dollar campaign contribution that can't be traced.
The only thing consistent about her high dudgeon and low practice is its hypocrisy. For it fits right in with her career-long assumption that the rules are made only for others.
To quote Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, which keeps up with this kind of political finagling: "This appears to be an out-and-out laundering operation designed to keep secret from the public the original sources of the funds given to the Super PAC, which is required to disclose its contributors."
Why is no one surprised? Because this is the kind of scandal that has marked Hillary Clinton's rise since she was making headlines in Arkansas with her highly suspect commodity trades--actually executed by her advisers/insiders, who knew how to assign the losses to others and the gains to her. And the higher she's risen, the lower she's fallen.
All that was before she repeated the same scandalous pattern in Washington, beginning with Travelgate and then moving on to bigger and worse things like Benghazi--and now her worldwide network of foundations. Which is how she squeezes big bucks out of every corrupt regime and corporation the Clintons (Bill, Hillary and Chelsea) can co-opt. Call it Clinton, Inc.
That's why no one is surprised that, having just denounced "the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money" into presidential campaigns, Hillary Clinton was soon grabbing her share of it. That's her well-established modus operandi: self-interest disguised as public beneficence. And it remains the same, just as her unconvincing excuses for it do.
Yet the brazen hypocrisy of it all seemed to catch the attention of no one except the occasional good-government type whose job it is to note, record and denounce such sordid goings-on. And even their statements--like Fred Wertheimer's--have the ring of duty rather than outrage. Because this is what we've all come to expect of the Clintons, and can expect more of as their co-campaign for the presidency proceeds.
Where the Clintons are concerned, the corrupt became the routine long ago, and old news isn't news, just repetition.
Next question: What happened to the money that Steele Stephens claims he doesn't have to pay, a $20,000 fine assessed against him for his violations of the rules governing securities trades?
He was at the center of the scandal that brought down poor Martha Shoffner, the disgraced state treasurer, yet he himself never served time. Instead he agreed to wear a wiretap and record every telling detail of how he'd bribed her.
Now he says he can't afford to pay his fine. But he earned some $2.5 million in commissions through the 85 trades he conducted on behalf of her office between July of 2009 and December of 2010. Where did all that money go?
Maybe we'll find out someday, or maybe we're so used to getting the runaround from our public miscreants that we no longer ask even the most obvious questions. Corruption doesn't numb the senses of only the corrupt, but of all those who have grown accustomed to it in public life.
Why is Allen Kerr, currently the state's insurance commissioner and before that an outstanding legislator and successful insurance agent, being sued by a previous insurance commissioner, Mike Pickens?
For the answer, see the fair, balanced and just plain excellent coverage of the whole affair by Arkansas Business' Mark Friedman, who has once again committed journalism in the highest degree. It's hard to see, after reading his article, how any fair-minded observer wouldn't sympathize with Mr. Kerr, who's already been cleared by the governor's office and the state's insurance department. Farmers Insurance Group, the big insurance combine he got crosswise with, has also backed down a time or two in the course of their dispute, and admitted it was in the wrong.
It sounds like a classic case of the little man--an independent insurance agent in this case--with the courage and conviction to take on the giant corporation that was toying with him, changing its story from time to time to cover its mistakes.
To quote William Lacy, the state insurance department's deputy commissioner and general counsel, Allen Kerr "has committed no violations of Arkansas law, nor has he violated his appointment agreement with Farmers, as he has done nothing to willfully misrepresent anything that would be detrimental to his [insurance] agency."
Case closed. At least in the court of public opinion. as it very well should have been. Sometimes justice is actually served.
Finally, why are many of Little Rock's teachers objecting to the shorter, simpler, five-page draft of a contract that the new, state-appointed superintendent of the school district--Baker Kurrus--has asked them to consider? Obvious answer: precisely because it is shorter and simpler, as opposed to the current 93-page horse-choker of a contract full of minute rules and regulations that has been used to hogtie the school district's every attempt at reform.
Now that the school district has been taken over by the state, there may be some realistic hope for the kind of reform the teachers' union has always opposed. Here's hoping that hope is fulfilled, and the Little Rock School District finally becomes one of the best in the state instead of one of the worst. And just maybe it will--if parents and public and taxpayers in general keep asking the right questions. And demanding answers instead of the usual runaround.
------------v------------
Paul Greenberg is the Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial writer and columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Editorial on 08/19/2015