Hillary Clinton asserts that when she and her husband, Bill Clinton, left the White House, they were “dead broke.” But in the 15 years since, the couple has amassed a multi-million-dollar fortune from speaking fees, book royalties, and Bill’s consulting work. Last year, the Clintons’ income took a nosedive, yet they still managed to rake in $10.6 million. But despite the doublet’s astonishing success padding their joint bank account, a Politico report reveals that Bill has requested more cash than any other past commander in chief from a taxpayer-funded program purposed to prevent erstwhile presidents from slipping into poverty.
Since the Clintons vacated 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, in 2001, through the end of last year, Bill has sought millions of dollars from the General Services Administration under the the Former Presidents Act, which was created in 1958, Politico reports, citing records it obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request. Bill used the program to subsidize the income of his staff, purchase I.T. equipment, and provide federal government benefits for his employees. But while the documents don’t reveal that the former president did anything illegal, they do illuminate the twisted web that is Clinton World.
This is where the lines between Bill’s personal office as a former president, the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary’s State Department work blur together. Over the period dating back to 2001 detailed in the records acquired by Politico, 22 staffers were paid by the G.S.A. for work they completed for Bill, under the Former Presidents Act. Of these nearly two dozen staffers who were paid through the program, 13 also worked for the foundation, according to Politico. Former presidents are allocated a total of $96,600 every year for staffing, a G.S.A. spokesperson told Politico, which they can apportion among employees at their discretion. Since he left the White House, Bill has had an average staff size of 10 on the G.S.A. payroll, according to the documents, which breaks down to a taxpayer-funded salary of $9,600 each, plus federal benefits. (Comparatively, George H.W. Bush has a G.S.A.-funded staff of four.)
Politico reports a number of longtime Clinton confidants and high-profile aides have graced the G.S.A. payroll over the years. These names include, but are not limited to, Justin Cooper, who helped Hillary set up her private e-mail server in 2009; Laura Graham, who was already receiving a six-figure salary from the foundation; Doug Band who served as an official at the Clinton’s charity until 2012; John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign manager and Bill’s former White House chief of staff; and Bruce Lindsey, who was C.E.O. of the foundation from 2004 through the middle of 2013. (Both Podesta and Lindsey are listed as not having worked during the periods they are listed on the G.S.A. payroll.)
A Clinton aide defended the overlap to Politico on the basis that President Clinton “wears several hats” and said that there “is no legal prohibition that would preclude the former president’s staff from receiving compensation from other sources or doing personal work for the former presidents.” The argument is that a single staffer could assist Bill with a paid private speech, a public speech in his presidential capacity, and do foundation work, for which that employee would be compensated by the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which is funded by the couple), the G.S.A., and the charity, respectively.
On a number of occasions, the G.S.A. pushed back on certain purchases, Politico reports, specifically furniture and I.T. equipment, in order to verify that the items were to be used by Bill’s personal office and not by his foundation. Clinton staff in one instance did use G.S.A. funds to buy a database system, which was subsequently kept at the charity’s offices and was used by staff at both entities. A Clinton aide said that the dual use of the system was necessary because of the overlap of the staff’s work, specifically with regard to President Clinton’s correspondence.
Like most Clinton scandals, the latest revelations evince a propensity for common greed, not criminality. All of the money requested by Clinton was within his rights, it appears, as a former president. But the appearance of a multi-millionaire taking advantage of a government program originally designed to prevent pennilessness will only further the perception of the Clintons as avaricious insiders. The documents also highlight just how interconnected the Clintons’ various enterprises truly are. As Hillary struggles to dismiss accusations that she fostered a pay-for-play culture during her tenure at the State Department and gave special access to foundation donors, her husband’s uncanny ability to push the envelope is unlikely to help.
