Throughout the dog days of the recently concluded election cycle, Democrat Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton found herself constantly having to defend herself and her husband Bill from attacks on their charitable foundation. The basis of many attacks related to the Clinton Foundation’s “Global Initiative” revolved around claims from opponents that the initiative was nothing more than a “pay-to-play” scheme.
Some of the claims were given legs when time and again, donors were shown to have had extraordinary access to Mrs. Clinton when she held the position as U.S. Secretary of State. Additionally, there were claims that donors were encouraged to pay Bill exorbitant amounts of money for speaking engagements.
In the weeks following Hilary’s surprising loss to now President Donald Trump, the Foundation has experienced a dramatic decline in donations, particularly from foreign governments that had been donating millions of dollars every year. As a result of this decline, the Clintons filed a notice with the New York State Department of Labor, stating they would be laying off 22 employees who had been working under the Global Initiative. As grounds for the layoffs, the document cited the cessation of business by April 15 of this year.
It took very little time for Clinton opponents to jump at the opportunity to claim they were correct about the Foundation serving as cover to support the Clinton’s expensive and suddenly high-profile lifestyle. The assumption is that with no influence to be peddled, why would anyone want to continue making contributions?
In an effort to fight back against these claims, Foundation leaders laid claim to the notion that Bill had already determined it was best to shut the initiative down in August of last year. Per these claims, it was something the Clintons wanted to do as means to avoid any potential conflicts of interest had Hilary won the election and became President.