I'm Looking Through You, You're Not the Same

David Weigel | March 28, 2008

Amanda Hydro of the Reason Foundation shames Hillary Clinton nicely in this expose of her, let's say, lacking transparency.

On government disclosure forms, Sen. Clinton reports they have assets worth somewhere between $10 million and $50 million. That’s a lot of paid speeches and book sales. For a point of contrast, Sen. Barack Obama’s reported belongings, on the same disclosure forms, are worth between $456,000 and $1.1 million.

How have the Clintons amassed most of their wealth since leaving the White House? Where did that $5 million that Sen. Clinton pumped into her own campaign earlier this year come from? Who has donated to the presidential library’s coffers?

If Sen. Clinton really were the "most transparent" public official in the country, we’d know the answers to these questions. Instead her campaign hems and haws and says they’ll try to release some tax returns on or around April 15.

And there's a call to sign the foundation's transparency pledge. Whole thing right here.

Comments

|3.28.08 @ 7:34PM|#

She's Hillary dammit!
She should not have to explain her finances.
She should not have to disclose her senate shenanigans.
She's Hillary Rodham Clinton, and she DESERVES to be president!

|3.28.08 @ 8:21PM|#

Hmmm, Amanda Hydro, an interesting nom de plume...giving secretive politicos well deserved hi-pressure water blastings.

|3.28.08 @ 9:43PM|#

It's from perfectly legitimate pardon fee income. Jeezsh.

<i>REASON</i> Commenter|3.28.08 @ 10:42PM|#

Hmmm, Amanda Hydro, an interesting nom de plume


For some reason this song is now stuck in my head

|3.28.08 @ 10:47PM|#

Hillary Clinton is a financially-opaque, superdelegate-manipulating, conniving gay woman... not that there's anything wrong with that!!

|3.28.08 @ 11:09PM|#

Why should she release her tax records? None of her supporters care a bit and she is impervious to the media.

She should listen to Rove and attack Obama on his taxes without disclosing hers and Bills. Now that's politickin!

Andy|3.29.08 @ 12:00AM|#

As far as Hillary's money, there are better reasons not to vote for her, so unless her competitors are going to hammer her with secrecy or hypocrisy charges, i don't think it really matters.

More importantly, thanks to Weigel for making me feel cool for catching both this Beatles reference and the Roots one yesterday (all my troubles seemed so far away..)

|3.29.08 @ 12:23AM|#

More importantly, thanks to Weigel for making me feel cool for catching both this Beatles reference and the Roots one yesterday (all my troubles seemed so far away..)

I caught them, too; but I'm probably just old rather than cool.

some guy|3.29.08 @ 7:07AM|#

It's not Hill's fault. Her pant suits come in only two varieties:
opaque and super-opaque (for those "heavy" days).

|3.29.08 @ 2:02PM|#

Somebody explain to me why an individual's personal finances are anyone else's business?

Correct me if I'm wrong, butI believe the only Constitutional pre-requisites for the office of President are being a natural-born citizen of some minimum age (45, I think).

Why should any additional disclosure be required (above and beyond what's typical for any other government employee)?

PS... please don't interpret this as support for Clinton, but a question on why wealth and income are considered relevent election issues.

Vermont Gun Owner|3.29.08 @ 2:43PM|#

PS... please don't interpret this as support for Clinton, but a question on why wealth and income are considered relevent election issues.

Because rich people are evil. Duh!

ed|3.29.08 @ 2:56PM|#

individual's personal finances

"Personal" is the keyword here. Once an individual decides to enter politics in his quest to rule the world, he surrenders his private self to public scrutiny. A free people would like to see who's behind his efforts, the not unreasonable concept being that a candidate who accepts contributions from an entity shares the values of that entity. Not that financial disclosure should be a prerequisite for public office...let the public ask and the press dig for answers. The candidate's response will be a valuable clue to his worthiness to serve.

|3.29.08 @ 2:57PM|#

does anyone really want to see through Hillary's pants suit? even Bill?

|3.29.08 @ 3:01PM|#

does anyone really want to see through Hillary's pants suit?

If only out of morbid curiosity, perhaps.

Zeno|3.29.08 @ 4:35PM|#

What I want to know is why these politicos (who must know this shit is coming someday) don't just play along a bit more. When you get dragged into transparency kicking and screaming, it makes you look...dirty.

If anyone thinks the finances aren't the public's business, say so out loud. Sure you lose some supporters for not playing into the media frenzy, but you'll also gain some just for being a person who says what they mean.

If you think that the public deserves to know what money Mrs. Obama was paid but not the full extent of your finances, then we've run into a problem.

|3.31.08 @ 11:54AM|#

Somebody explain to me why an individual's personal finances are anyone else's business?

Politicians' finances are the public's business because we want to know who is putting money directly into their wallets (or purses, as the case may be).

I mean, if money they can't spend on themselves is the public's business via the campaign finance laws, how is money they can spend on themselves strong>not the public's business?

|3.31.08 @ 11:56AM|#

blasted handmade html tags. Jeebus, Reason, get a decent forums package.

how is money they can spend on themselves not the public's business?