Matt raises a worthwhile query here: Bill Clinton's Global Initiative is coordinating, and exulting in, huge sums of money being committed beneath its auspices. Meanwhile, his wife is running for president, and also being offered significant sums of money to finance her campaign. Those sums, however, are subject to rigorous disclosure rules, so the public knows who's trying to purchase influence. Not so for donors to the CGI, who are no doubt accruing goodwill and facetime with Bill Clinton, and thus with the man everybody agrees is Hillary's top adviser. There's nothing intrinsically improper about any of this, of course, but it is relevant to her campaign, and for that reason, it should be conducted with all possible transparency. But that's not happened. Instead, the Clintons have committed to the principle of full transparency, but only once a bill that Hillary Clinton has cosponsored becomes law, and so for4ces such transparency on all past presidents (Bill, speaking at the CGI, complained that he didn't want to operate under one set of rules, while all others got held to a different, lower standard). But so long as George Bush is in office, that legislation won't go anywhere, and so Bill Clinton will not actually have to disclose. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton actually is running for office now, and her husband's donors actually are relevant now. To be committed to the principle but not willing to lead by example is to stall until the issue passes. --Ezra Klein
