At a press conference the other day, Bush was asked some pointed questions about plans for his presidential library at SMU: “Do you believe it’s important for the American people to know who is giving that kind of money to their President? Will you disclose the contributions as they come in? And will you place any restriction on who gives money and how much they can give?”
The president didn’t appear to want to talk about it. He vowed to “look at the disclosure requirements and make a decision,” which seemed like an odd phrase. When pressed on whether he’d consider restrictions on who can give, and whether he’d take foreign money, Bush added, “Yes, I’ll probably take some foreign money, but don’t know yet.” Finally, asked about the people’s right to know, Bush hedged: “We’re weighing, taking a look, taking consideration, giving it a serious consideration.”
Today, the WaPo editorial board struck the right note, suggesting disclosure is the way to go.
Imagine a country whose leader collected huge sums for his personal benefit from corporations, from wealthy individuals with interests before the government and maybe even from foreign countries. Imagine that the leader didn’t have to reveal anything about the size of the checks or their sources. If this sounds like some corrupt, second-rate republic, think again. It’s happened right here, in the United States, and it may be about to happen all over again. We refer, of course, to George W. Bush’s presidential library….
Granted, presidents can’t stuff the money in their pockets and walk off, but the libraries, as monuments to their presidencies and vehicles for their post-presidential activities, are important to them. At the same time, these are public facilities; although built with private donations, the libraries are ultimately operated by the National Archives. Presidents want to collecting [sic] checks in office, when the money flows most easily, which is precisely the problem. If libraries are to be funded this way, the public has a strong interest in knowing where the money comes from.
We have, as it turns out, already heard some hints about the sources of the donations.
Faiz noted a few months ago:
The New York Daily News reports, “President Bush and his truest believers are about to launch their final campaign — an eye-popping, half-billion-dollar drive for the Bush presidential library.”
Bush is attempting to raise $500 million to build his library and a think tank at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Bush fund-raisers hope to get approximately $250 million from what they call “megadonations” of $10 million to $20 million each. Among the candidates for “megadonations,” whose names will remain anonymous:
“Bush loyalists have already identified wealthy heiresses, Arab nations and captains of industry as potential ‘mega’ donors and are pressing for a formal site announcement — now expected early in the new year.”
The whole process sounds a little sketchy, doesn’t it?