Transparency

Why Is Clinton Making the Case for More Transparency?

By Peter Nicholas

Boiled down, Hillary Clinton‘s rationale for being president goes like this: As a battle-tested veteran of Washington politics as it’s now practiced, she’d be able to work the levers of power and punch through the gridlock on Capitol Hill. Soaring rhetoric and good intentions mean little in the face of hard political divisions (as President Barack Obama came to learn). Better to have a president steeped in Washington culture and ready to confront fierce partisan blowback from the day she takes office.

So it’s surprising to see Mrs. Clinton list as one of her four main priorities ending the dysfunction in Washington she says she can navigate and doing away with what she calls “unaccountable” money sloshing through political campaigns.

“We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all,” she said last month during a campaign stop in Iowa.

It’s a fine thing to say and a laudable goal. Yet it seems at odds with the underlying premise of a Clinton candidacy.

And polling suggests that voters aren’t counting on Mrs. Clinton to purge Washington of its distasteful practices such as infighting or campaign-spending excesses. They see her, rather, as someone able to navigate a political system they know to be flawed.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey last month showed 44% of people gave her good marks in terms of “being effective and getting things done,” compared to just 34% who gave her a poor rating in this regard.

The same poll showed that 51% see her as “knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency,” versus only 32% who don’t see her in this light.

When measured by the qualities one would naturally associate with political reformers, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t fare so well. Only 25%, for example, rated her as “honest and straightforward,” compared to 50% who gave her a low rating. What’s more, just 38% saw her as an “inspirational and exciting” choice for president; 45% did not see her this way.

Why, then, is Mrs. Clinton making a case for more transparent, accountable politics and campaign-finance reform? It’s what candidates do. And if they fail to deliver on the promise, they don’t seem to pay much of a price.

Recall that Mr. Obama campaigned in 2008 pledging to bring C-Span camera crews into the back rooms where officials would discuss an overhaul of the health-care system. Sounded like good TV: deals being cut in full view of the American people. It never happened.

Mr. Obama also had harsh words for the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case that gave rise to super PACs accepting unlimited campaign contributions.

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests,” he said in his 2010 State of the Union address.

Yet he never renounced the super PAC, Priorities USA Action, working for his re-election in 2012. Indeed, his campaign team wound up urging donors to give to Priorities.

If voters saw a gap between word and deed, they didn’t punish Mr. Obama in the 2012 election.

There’s no sign Mrs. Clinton will be a purist when it comes to her latest race. At the same time she calls for reining in practices unleashed by the Citizens United ruling – possibly through a constitutional amendment — wealthy donors will be giving millions to the pro-Clinton super PAC that is planning TV ads to promote her candidacy.

She’s playing to win. In a fundraising trip to California last week, she met privately with a group of potential donors to Priorities USA, now dedicated to helping her win the White House.