Opinion

WHAT HILLARY WON’T PROMISE

Hillary Clinton got a predictably warm reception yesterday from her Senate colleagues as she appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee for confirmation hearings on her nomination as secretary of state.

The only sour note came when panel Republicans, led by ranking member Richard Lugar of Indiana and David Vitter of Louisiana, brought up those pesky foreign donations to the foundation run by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Both senators pressed Clinton to pledge that the foundation would provide a clearer picture of its largesse from foreign governments and businesses beyond what has already been promised.

But the secretary-designate demurred, insisting that the level of disclosure already agreed to by her husband is “unprecedented” for a former president.

True enough.

But nowhere near as unprecedented as a former president’s wife being elected to the Senate, running for president in her own right – and then being named secretary of state.

As Lugar noted, “the Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it could curry favor through a donation. It also sets up potential problems with any action taken by the secretary of state in relation to foreign givers or their countries.”

Since a secretary of state can hardly recuse herself from specific foreign-policy decisions, he added, “the bottom line is that even well-intentioned foreign donations carry risks for US foreign policy.”

He’s right.

Which is why the senator proposed four more conditions to the ones negotiated by the Clintons and the Obama transition team – the most important being a halt to all future foreign donations.

He also urged further disclosure of past contributions, including when they were made and how much was given.

Clinton, however, resisted any suggestion that her understanding with the president-elect be renegotiated or amended.

None of these concerns is likely to stand in the way of Clinton’s expected confirmation. But for an administration that had committed itself to full transparency, it’s a disappointing way to start.