Clinton's Compulsive Speechifying

So what's the problem when Hillary Clinton gets in on the act? It is the difference between being firmly on the exit side of the revolving door and being poised to circle back in. The former presidents are formers. They're cashing in on the past.

But Hillary Clinton has, she hopes, a political future. And that counsels prudence. Just because companies are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't mean you need to take the money.

Because to take the check is to invite suspicions that they are seeking to curry favor with you, in your future role. And that your actions were influenced by this largesse.

The wiser course -- certainly the wiser course on the verge of launching a presidential campaign -- is to just say no, however big the bucks. After all, notwithstanding Bill Clinton's "gotta pay our bills" defense, it's not as if the couple was scrounging for change in the Chappaqua couch cushions. Marco Rubio has to cash in retirement funds to buy a new fridge. Not the Clintons.

Now comes the news about the previously undisclosed speaking fees that went to the foundation, not the Clintons themselves. The foundation says it is disclosing these out of an abundance of transparency.

True, no law or ethics rule requires such reporting. As to Secretary Clinton's agreement to disclose foundation donors, the position of the foundation and the Clinton campaign is that the document doesn't include these because they're "revenue" for services rendered, not charitable gifts.

This interpretation makes no sense. By this logic, Vladimir Putin himself could have given the foundation $2 billion to hear Bill Clinton speak while Hillary Clinton was secretary and it wouldn't have to be revealed.

Was this a bookkeeping glitch? (Another one, after the failure to specify foreign-government givers on IRS forms, or the previously revealed instances in which donors weren't reported.) Or was it a calculated end-run around the disclosure agreement? I suspect the former but understand those who tend to the more nefarious interpretation.

One explanation involves bungling; the other, shadiness. Neither is an especially attractive proposition for a presidential candidate.

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.