BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Clinton Library Sells Secret Donor List
Email
Print
ShareNovember 19, 2007 1:47 PM
Three years after the William J. Clinton Presidential Library opened its doors, the list of donors who helped the former president build his $165 million complex remains a secret from the public.
Yet the Blotter on ABCNews.com has learned that the Clinton Foundation sold portions of the list through a data company headed by a longtime friend and donor.
"The fact that they've sold the list and then turned around and said that these names must be kept anonymous completely undercuts their argument," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog group that tracks the influence of money in politics.
An employee of Walter Karl, a subsidiary of the data company InfoUSA, told ABCNews.com that the company made a list of more than 38,000 donors to the Clinton presidential library available for sale to foundations and other nonprofit groups from June 2006 to May 2007. A spokesman for the company would not say how the profits from the sale of the partial list were distributed.
There is no legal requirement for presidential libraries to disclose the identities of their contributors. Donors, including corporations and foreign governments, can give unlimited amounts while the president is still sitting in office.
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS
"This is one of the few places that remain under the veil of secrecy, and there is really no good reason for it," says Krumholz. "Disclosure is important because the money is often being raised while the president is in office, and in this case and with the Bush family, they can be given for currying favor with persons other than the president being honored."
"I don't think I should disclose it unless there is some conflict of which I am aware of, and there is not," said former President Bill Clinton at a news conference in September after his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, was questioned about the donor list at a presidential debate. "A lot of people gave me money with the understanding that they could give anonymously. And if they gave publicly, they would be the target for every other politician in America."
The former foundation chairman Skip Rutherford says that when the foundation started soliciting funds, it adopted the policy of the Reagan library to leave disclosure up to donors.
"People were told that we would not disclose their gifts," said Rutherford. "Disclosure was up to the donor; if the donors chose to do so, it was their prerogative. Some did; others didn't."
The George Bush Presidential Library and Museum voluntarily disclosed a list of donors giving more than $10,000 at its opening, with the exception of a "few" who asked to remain anonymous, according to the library's executive director Dr. Roman Popadiuk.
Late in the day, the Clinton Foundation responded to the story with a statement saying, "the Foundation's list included individuals who gave $100 or less in response to direct mail solicitations. Using the Walter Karl Company as its vendor, other entities could rent or exchange use of the Foundation's list. The vendor independently undertakes the mailing and does not share the actual list with other entities."
The little that is known about the identities of the donors to the Clinton library was reported by the New York Sun in 2004, after a reporter discovered the names on a touch-screen computer on the third floor of the library after its opening.
Members of the Saudi royal family, Arab businessmen, the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei and Taiwan, and Hollywood celebrities, were among the 57 individuals or foundations who gave $1 million or more to the library, according to the Sun.
The computer with the list of donors was disconnected after the Sun article ran. At the time, Clinton officials said that a permanent list of donors contributing $100,000 or more would eventually be installed on a wall at the library.
Bill Rollnick, the former chairman of Mattel and a longtime Clinton supporter who was among those contributing $1 million or more, said he didn't think the donor list was "anybody's business."
"If they want to make it public, that's their business," said Rollnick. "There's nothing nefarious about it -- it's just a library."
Vin Gupta, CEO of InfoUSA, was also on the list of donors giving $1 million or more.
His ties to the Clintons came under scrutiny earlier in the year when a lawsuit filed by InfoUSA shareholders accused Gupta of wasting millions of dollars of the company's money to "ingratiate himself" with the Clintons and other personal friends.
Separately, a New York Times article in May revealed that InfoUSA was involved in an investigation in Iowa for selling mailing lists of elderly Americans to criminals. In response to the investigation, the company released a statement saying, "While InfoUSA can not manage what a client does with the publicly available information InfoUSA provides, the company has a strict policy about not selling data to companies who act illegally."
Gupta has donated and raised millions of dollars for the Clintons' political campaigns and charities over the last decade. InfoUSA spent millions more paying the former president as a consultant and flying him and his wife to events around the country and family vacations in Hawaii and Acapulco, Mexico on the company's private jet, according to the court documents.
InfoUSA officials have stated that the expenses were "legitimate business expenses."
A spokesman for Sen. Clinton said in May that InfoUSA had been reimbursed for her flights, though ethics rules at the time only required the reimbursement be equal to the cost of first-class airfare.
This post has been updated.
Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?
November 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (56)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Who cares??!! How can any thinking American say that in todays world?
Everything matters and people must be accountable for their words and deeds.
Think back to the clinton years and the decline of American Political discourse. This ugly harsh atmosphere is another clinton leftover. Do we want to revisit any part that?
Posted by: snorkle | Nov 19, 2007 7:25:22 PM
Why is there a PICTURE of Bill Clinton with this article? Is Bill the one selling the names, does he have ANYTHING to do with it? I didn't see his name associated with anything except the name on the Library itself. But, lots of postings are referring to the Clintons, it's about the managers of the information at the Library, not anything to do with Bill or Hillary.
Posted by: able | Nov 19, 2007 7:46:18 PM
Why is every posting about the Clintons? It's only his name on the Building, donors are people wanting a Library, Bill nor Hillary sold the list. It's about the management selling the names on the list! Money going for a Library is NOT like money going into someone's pocket. Get real folks, this has nothing to do with Bill or Hillary, unless you want to ASSUME IT MEANS SOMETHING!
Posted by: able | Nov 19, 2007 7:51:28 PM
What does it have to do with Bill or Hillary? It's his name on the BUILDING!
Posted by: able | Nov 19, 2007 7:53:28 PM
I wonder if they included the names of the felons that were pardoned and coincidentally became huge doners. God I hope Hillary wins the dems nomination.
Posted by: Scott | Nov 19, 2007 7:54:56 PM
WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE, it's only Clinton's name on the building, HE didn't sell them. The management did, and there's nothing to find in the donor's list, it's money that DIDN'T go into anyone's bank-account. It couldn't have financed one penny's worth of "Political Favor".
Posted by: able | Nov 19, 2007 8:02:27 PM
Who cares??? I'm just glad he's gone!!
Posted by: Terry Sullins | Nov 19, 2007 8:13:10 PM
Our government is corrupt, period! Who do these politicians answer to? Are they above the Law?
Posted by: James Serra | Nov 19, 2007 8:18:06 PM
I think I am going to run for president. I will have 4 answers for every question, if I cant find an answer, I will have a question planted (like in Iowa). I will hide my past so nobody knows what I REALLY stand for.--Sincerly or not- Hillariuos Clinton. ---------------I hope she wins the Dem nomination too.
Posted by: Ed- Madison WI | Nov 19, 2007 10:05:04 PM
For the ignorant who questions, "huh, what's the big deal?" let's say we're interested in a couple of things: a) which foreign and leftist connections gave money to Clinton for the library, which may or may not have gone to the purpose of the contribution, but rather a future campaign, since there is a difference. b) Neither Barbara Bush, nor Nancy Reagan are running for president; therefore neither the need to know, nor the desire to know is enough to fill your eye dropper, so waiting on H.W.Bush & Reagan disclosures is a really asinine arguement in this case.
Blue dress democrats can not be convinced and are devoted to continuing to cover up and protect the Clintons from any question, since she's a girl and he's a charasmatic has-been, both whose time is past.
Posted by: Rita | Nov 19, 2007 10:08:54 PM
How long will it take for the public to realize that "team Clinton" (him and her) are criminals? None of these revealations should surprise anyone.
Posted by: Sam Russo | Nov 19, 2007 10:44:00 PM
Oh, to able: "he's coming back!!!
Posted by: Sam Russo | Nov 19, 2007 10:45:27 PM
Wow...Iove reading you people that defend any of these political banditos. They are ALL a bunch of bleeping crooks and sell outs. They (poLIEticians, big biz etc.) are willing to sell OUR souls for the power they fiend for...to anyone. Doesn't matter if it is selling our technology to the Chineses or taking money from terror sponsoring royal Arabian families. We are being led to the slaughter and it is our elected leaders and their CEO buddies that are responsibe. Who cares if it is Clinton or Bush? Why do you people defend these political parties? Lastly, liberals are a bunch of phonies...you can keep Clinton and Gore as your heroes. I hope the ACLU eventually destroys any shred of dignity that we once had as Americans and then liberals will see what a bunch of fools they are. In fact, they are probably fighting for the right of a terrorist to take pics of the Empire State Building, or maybe even fighting for their right to have the blueprints! Actually, they are probably fighting for the right of pedophiles to sexually abuse kids.
Posted by: JB | Nov 19, 2007 10:51:36 PM
HO, HO, YEA TO SUPPORTS OF CLINTON!
dEAF, BLIND, AND ONLY EMOTIONAL, THEY DO NOT READ FACTS THAT COUNTER THEIR EMOTIONS.
OF COURSE BILL MADE MONEY, SELLING, PARDONS, PROMISES, ETC. THEY WANT MONEY & POWER NOW!
UMM, DID YOU KNOW THAT ALL THE CLOTHING, JEWLERY, ETC. DONATED TO HILLARY, SHE PUT IN LIBRARY SO SHE CAN CHECK THEM OUT WHEN SHE WANTS & DID NOT HAVE TO CLAIM VALUE. sHE IS SNEAKY.
YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR HERSELF, AND PAY GIANT TAXES, & HERSELF, CONTROLLING YOU? wHY? SHE (RIGHT OUT OF MARX'S BOOK) PROMISED TO TAKE THINGS AWAY FROM YOU FOR "COMMON GOOD", AMERICANS HAVE TOO MANY FREEDOMS, FREE MARKET SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK" ETC.
WHY, WOULD ANYONE VOTE FOR "I CANNOT RECALL", ETC. VERY SCARY !!!!!
BET NEWS FOLKS WILL NOT PUBLISH THIS???? WONDER?
Posted by: sue WINN | Nov 19, 2007 11:12:18 PM
Why do living Presidents have libraries of them self? I can only see it as their egos are too big to have a life of a common american. It can also lead to corruption like the total disregard of the Clintons. They never have to answer to no one. A library should only be considered 50 years after their (the Presidents) death. That way only the really good presidents get one.
Posted by: Ed | Nov 20, 2007 2:04:38 AM
What's this got to do with Bill Clinton?The article says it's kept secret so the sitting President doesn't show favoritism to contributors, it's probably still a secret because his wife is still in politics. I don't see where "the Clintons" have done anything wrong, maybe the management of the library....Is everyone so angry with the Clintons that they use this article to spread more hatred about them?
Posted by: able | Nov 20, 2007 3:57:28 AM
WHAT'S the use, some people are going to make it sound like a Clinton Scandal, read the article again.
Posted by: able | Nov 20, 2007 5:53:44 AM
Why is something all right when Republicans and completely wrong when a Democrat does it?
It seems to me that the definition of criminally insane - that being the inability of someone to know the difference between right and wrong, easily applies to most of the Republican party.
Posted by: Samantha Stickers | Nov 20, 2007 11:21:34 AM
The Clintons are the worst the country has seen in it's history.It seem that the slezy ones just keep slidding and getting away with more and more. Personally I can't see the attraction with Bill or Hillary. Their just such liars. What do we do when we meet those kind of people in our own lives. If your smart you have nothing to do with them again, because you know they will do it again. People need to get smart.
Posted by: Fred DeFelice | Nov 20, 2007 1:51:31 PM
It's the silly season again. There's a lot of misinformation to unpack in this story from a whole understanding-a-business angle.
Renting and exchanging lists is standard direct mail practice. You can rent (note: as a rule, lists are rented for one-time use, not "bought") or "exchange" (if you have names to swap back) lists of donors to candidates and causes on both sides of the political spectrum. And you can rent lists of catalog buyers, subscribers, and even individuals who are in the public records as homeowners or what have you. You can like it or not like it, but it's a business and not an invention of the Clintons.
Renting and exchanging lists is one of the most cost-effective ways for organizations to find new donors. You don't stand on a street corner and hope people will find you and write you a check, you go out and ask for their support (ie rent names and mail something to them).
So, to flip this the other way, a Republican candidate will likely rent names from gun rights, anti-gay and anti-abortion organizations. What's the big deal? Are donors to the Eagle Forum somehow "buying" favors from whatever Republican candidate is renting their names?
Posted by: ExDirectMailPro | Nov 20, 2007 1:52:12 PM
Post a comment
