But Democrats don't have their hands in the oil industry like Replicans.....

[Disclaimer]

I'm not naive - I understand your point. But my point is that there are much more direct and effective ways to influence politics than donations to a charity. Not to mention your answer is in your question... the foundation didn't pay for Clinton to fly - Mr. Giustra did, then donated to the charity on top of it.

I think Dweez has the best scheme... except how about I donate to you so you can throw a Stage 1 turbo on MY busa?

Edited December 19, 2008 by JRMMiii

[wolfman]

I'm not naive - I understand your point. But my point is that there are much more direct and effective ways to influence politics than donations to a charity. Not to mention your answer is in your question... the foundation didn't pay for Clinton to fly - Mr. Giustra did.

This guy pays for Clinton to fly out and then months later donates millions of dollars. I guess he wasn't 'technically' a donor when he flew Clinton out but this is really just splitting hairs. And I wasn't even referring to a specific example. I guess I should have said: "the foundation and its donors pay Clinton's way."

What are the more direct and effective ways to influence politics? I'm not trying to be a dick...I really want to know. I don't know how else the Mid East would do it without hurting the politician's career. Non-profit organizations seem like the only way to me.

[wolfman]

P.S. I should also add that along with Dweez, I will also be accepting donations for rebuilding my F4i. Donations can either be in the form of parts or monetary. THX PM for my PayPal info or 'parts needed' list.

:grin:

[Disclaimer]

I never thought you were being a dick, they're important questions to discuss.

More direct and effective methods are to lobby directly with the congressmen/women for their personal benefit, or donate to their campaigns.

I don't think there are any politicians in this world with a 100% free and clear conscience that are on some superior ethical or morale high ground, but the issue I had with the OP and the intent was, in this instance, the foundation was founded in 2001 AFTER Bill Clinton left office, so if people were trying to gain influence, why would it behoove them to deal with Bill, and not Hillary, or some other people IN power?

That's not to say Bill still doesn't have some influence, but at the end of the day, he's got very little say in the political process anymore. He can't veto, he doesn't vote in the Senate or House, and he's not a supreme court justice... so, why would you waste time/money/effort on Bill and his charity if you wanted to really get something accomplished at the US gov't level? So trying to connect the Democratic party via one mans charitable organization to having their pockets deep in 'big oil' and the middle east is a stretch, a far stretch at best, in my opinion.

But that's just my opinion.

Edited December 19, 2008 by JRMMiii

[wolfman]

Yeah, I guess since the chances that Bill and Hillary actually have sex or even sleep in the same bed are pretty slim....he probably doesn't have a whole lot of influence on her. :grin: I think this could have been a bigger deal had she won the presidential nomination but not so much now.

Add: I agree I don't think there are any politicians who don't have a little dirt on their hands. I didn't vote Dem/Rep and I'm fine with Obama winning the election..so I'm not trying to drag the Dems through the mud. I believe most politicians work the same way regardless of party.

Edited December 19, 2008 by wolfman

[Cdubyah]

:beathorse::beathorse:

[kawi kid]

agreed