American diplomats are condemning what they view as President Barack Obama’s selling ambassadorships to high donors. This has long been a problem, which I criticized in earlier administrations, and Obama supporters are likely to return to the refrain that he is just doing what his predecessors did. That is never a very satisfying answer. This is a form of corruption as presidents give high diplomatic posts to people who give them loads of money. Obama has apparently expanded on this sordid practice to a level that is alarming diplomats. The fact is that all ambassadorships should be confined to people selected for their diplomatic skills, preferably from the ranks of our career diplomats or academia.
For years, I have been in conversations with people close to the White House and President Obama who openly discuss the amount of money required to secure an ambassadorship. Just last week a ranking Democratic operative told me that a friend had put together around $2 million in donations because he was told that “the price had gone up.”
That is the very point of the article below where it is being reported that the price is up to $1.8 million. It is not clear why the White House does not simply post the price list on the website to facilitate these purchases. I recently gave a speech and had dinner with a major donor who said that he gave “his” ambassadorship to his wife. She loved being called an ambassador.
Some donors raise so much that they are allowed to travel around the world playing ambassador. Obama’s campaign finance chairman, Matthew Barzun, was given the choice diplomatic post at the Court of St James’s, which comes with a residence with a garden that is second only in size to that of Buckingham Palace. He just finished a stint as ambassador to Sweden.
Thomas Pickering has denounced the practice as “simony” or the selling of public office. He is obviously right that “it has the effect of diminishing perhaps the sense that the US is treating these countries with the respect they deserve.”
Susan Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), has also denounced the record of Obama in these dubious transactions.
I remain astonished that we have allowed this practice to continue. Obama apologists have to do more than simply say that he is simply following the same corrupt practices of his predecessors. It appears that he is a standout in the selling of public offices.
Source: Guardian
http://scholarsandrogues.com/2007/06/25/bushs-patronage-appointments-to-ambassador-exceed-fathers-clintons/ Really don’t think this practice has anything to do with the Chicago as none of the early practitioners of this had anything to do with Chicago.. The appointments will go on until we have public financing of campaigns .. something that libertarians generally oppose. Campaigns are getting more expensive due to Citizens United so this unsavory practice will probably continue to increase rather than cease to exist when the Chicagoan leaves office.
Did the professor complain about this practice, or call it corruption with previous administrations?
It is a dirty business but as was already written the way it is done (sadly) Did the price allegedly go up because this president is greedier or because of inflation in costs of doing business, or even because is citizens United and corporations are giving so much money that this is one way in which the other party can keep up. (Since it is my understanding the repubs are much better at getting big $ from corporations).
Dredd, I do use the Captain Renault quote often. It always comes in handy.
Dredd, My cryptology machine is being repaired. Could you please decrypt your last comment for me. Thanks.
randyjet, I TOTALLY agree that the “money is access” to ALL politicians is how our entire political structure has devolved. However, it is quite clear Mr. Turley and the Guardian article have pointed out, in the specific area of Ambassador positions, it has gotten much worse w/ the Obama administration. Do we agree on that?
NS No I cannot agree since I have no basis or evidence for that, apart from anonymous quotes and ” sources” which are basically useless. In fact, you can find a more reasonable explanation by saying that Obama has attracted a more competent group of major donors who are well qualified, and thus have access to these diplomatic posts.
I would agree that Joe Kennedy was the worst political appointment to the UK, but the FACT is that as the first SEC head, he had done an outstanding job for FDR and got rave reviews from all sides of the political spectrum. It was his conservative politics and personal cowardice that did him in. So even then using past performance is not a good indicator of worth for success in diplomacy. There are numerous instances of incompetents in the professional elite in the State Dept. too.
nick spinelli 1, July 11, 2013 at 1:21 pm
It appears the folks making references to Paul, Bush, etc. just didn’t get the post Mr. Turley wrote.
============================
So, you are NS now.
Cool.
Anyway, aren’t you aware of copyright laws sir?
Bush II has a copyright on certain things, like Tricky Penis Nixon.
And sir, are you also not aware of Second Breakfy?
JT shared an emotional reaction of sorts:
No, I am not going to remind us of the “I am shocked, SHOCKED, that there is gambling going on in this joint …” from the movie … resisting … resisting … oh, OK you win.
It appears the folks making references to Paul, Bush, etc. just didn’t get the post Mr. Turley wrote. Once you get a mantra in your head it’s tough to let it go. And, Darren/AY..I’m glad I didn’t have to be the first to bring up “The Chicago way.” That’s what we’re talking about here.
I see that NS and others refuse to address the main issue of the FACT that such donors have major access to Presidential attention. In FACT,most major countries LIKE the fact that influential people are posted to their country, not some poor career diplolmat who has to go through the State Dept desks and bureaucracy. So let’s get real about the facts of life in ALL politics.
As I said earlier, HOW these people perform IS a FAR more legitimate question and the President SHOULD be held accountable for that.
“The fact is that all ambassadorships should be confined to people selected for their diplomatic skills, preferably from the ranks of our career diplomats or academia.”
Yep. Especially since most of our career diplomats jumped ship from State during the Bush Administration and in to academia. And what Nal said.
politician into office. but our choice as whom we have for president is nothing less than sickening. excuse me while I go take two no make that three showers.
he was sound asleep when they taught the doctor and clean hands in law school. he has become so corrupt by power that he has forgotten what ethics truly are. at least there are good people like you doing what they can to educate others as to what is truly going on in government.
I don’t understand why “Selling” is in quotes.
Every now and again I decided to check in on some of these articles and each time I am more and more alarmed and appalled. I voted a slick and more and more politically corrupt
Darren,
For the Chicago machine this is just business as usual….
As Rod Blagojevich so eloquently taught us:
“it’s a f—ing valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing”
And the choice locations go to the highest bidder it seems. Can one become the ambassador to The Gambia for 15 grand?
It’s a bit hard to claim the high moral ground in a diplomatic situation when the ambassador presented to a foreign country bought his/her position.
It’s good that the British press is all over this because the American Media is generally going to ignore it.
How presidential
The rotting stench only grows
A problem in Washington is the continuation of prior corrupt practices.
Washington has become so tone deaf to integrity that everything has become relative; worse, our press corp has come to accept that standard.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/09/rand_pauls_team_has_another_white_supremacist/ And how do the Paul supporters defend another association with a white supremacist?
I have no problem with this since those who give or donate large amounts of money for supporting a candidate can be sure of getting a hearing from the President. Thus a politically connected person as Ambassador is a PLUS for the country to which they are assgined. Now how they perform is another question and that becomes a good point for legitimate concern. THAT is the problem. In fact, one of the worst Ambassadors to the Court of St James was Joe Kennedy Sr. who was an absolute disaster for FDR. It got so bad that FDR simply cut out Kennedy completely in dealing with the British government. He should have been fired long before he was,but FDR kept him out of his way by leaving him there.
How much did the Benghazi dudes pay?
Some of those places for sale violate the Consumer Protection Act.
But, when indoctrination replaces enlightenment people pay a lot for places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
No wonder the sales come with “NO REFUNDS.”
I really don’t like the practice but…. Hey, it’s a cost of doing business….