The Ballroom Blitz Should Be a Bigger Scandal

"The revelation that Donald Trump has demolished the East Wing, with plans to rebuild it at jumbo size with private funds, provoked an initial wave of outrage-followed by a predictable counter-wave of pseudo-sophisticated qualified defenses. "In classic Trump fashion, the president is pursuing a reasonable idea in the most jarring manner possible," editorializes The Washington Post. The New York Times' Ross Douthat and The Wall Street Journal's editorial board have similar assessments: We should all calm down, put aside our feelings about the president and the admittedly flawed process by which he arrived at this project, and appreciate the practical value of the new facility."

"Let's forget questions of proportion and aesthetics (I could not be less qualified to judge either) and consider the matter solely on the issue of corruption. Trump has funded the project by soliciting donors who have potential or actual business before the government. By traditional standards, this would constitute a massive scandal. We know this because a very similar scandal occurred about a decade ago. Remember the Clinton Foundation? After the 43rd president left office, he established a charitable foundation to undertake good works: disaster relief, public health, and other largely uncontroversial endeavors."

"But the Clinton Foundation became a political liability after reports suggested that it created a potential conflict of interest. Bill Clinton may have retired from elected office, but Hillary Clinton harbored widely known ambitions to run in the future. So the wealthy people and companies that donated to the foundation might have been hoping for access to and gratitude from a potential future president."

Donald Trump demolished the East Wing and plans a larger rebuild funded by private donors. Initial outrage shifted to defenses that emphasize practicality while minimizing process concerns. The project was financed by soliciting donors who have potential or actual business before the government, creating a serious corruption concern by traditional standards. A clear parallel exists with the Clinton Foundation, which drew criticism for creating potential conflicts when donors might seek access to a future president. Questions of proportion and aesthetics are set aside to focus attention on risks of donor influence and access.

Read at The Atlantic