Bill Clinton’s Philanthropic Decisions Raise Questions for Future

As Bill Clinton limits his charitable activities to smooth the way for his wife’s nomination to become secretary of state, nonprofit leaders worry that the former president is hobbling his role as a philanthropic leader and violating the trust of his donors by disclosing their names.

Barack Obama last week officially announced that Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York, was his choice to become the country’s top diplomat.

To ease concerns about potential conflicts related to Mr. Clinton’s philanthropy, the former president took several steps.

• He will suspend his daily responsibilities at the William J. Clinton Foundation, in New York.
• Future contributors to his foundation, which includes his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., will be vetted by the State Department and disclosed to the public each year. By the end of 2008, the former president will also make public the names of more than 200,000 donors who have given to his nonprofit group, a move he has resisted in the past.
• Mr. Clinton will establish as a separate nonprofit entity the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual meeting of world leaders and philanthropists, removing it from the umbrella of his foundation. He will continue to hold the event, but it will no longer be allowed to receive contributions from foreign governments. Last week, the Clinton Global Initiative held its first gathering in Asia, but similar events abroad will be canceled while Mrs. Clinton is secretary of state.

Some nonprofit leaders wonder if the concessions Mr. Clinton made will hamstring his philanthropic efforts, especially his much-vaunted deal making.

For example, persuading pharmaceutical companies to reduce the cost of AIDS and malaria medicines for impoverished regions of the world is widely seen as Mr. Clinton’s biggest philanthropic accomplishment.

Jane Wales, president of the Global Philanthropy Forum, who helped organize this year’s Clinton Global Initiative event in New York, said she hopes the potential restrictions will not prevent similar agreements.

“Does this mean he would step away from that type of activity? If so, that would be too bad, because he has a unique set of skills,” she said.

In addition, Ms. Wales said that while Clinton donors should welcome a “high degree of transparency,” some may hold back from giving in the future.

“There is always the risk that philanthropists wishing to enjoy a high degree of privacy will be made uncomfortable,” Ms. Wales said.

‘Totally Inappropriate’

Others have questioned Mr. Clinton’s decision to reveal the names of benefactors.

“It is totally inappropriate if people were promised anonymity or had a reasonable expectation of privacy,” said Jack B. Siegel, a nonprofit lawyer.

Given his wife’s long-standing interest in politics, Mr. Siegel argues that Mr. Clinton should have established early on in which situations he would reveal contributors’ identities.

“He could have specified to donors the circumstances when he would disclose, but he apparently didn’t,” Mr. Siegel said. “Everybody in the philanthropic community should be disturbed by disclosure under these circumstances regardless of their political persuasion.”

Not all nonprofit officials share those concerns.

“I don’t see it having a negative impact at all,” said Doug Ulman, president of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, in Austin, Tex., which has worked with Mr. Clinton on a worldwide effort to prevent cancer. “I don’t see our partnership or commitment changing in any way based on his wife’s role and his role.”

The issue of who has supported Mr. Clinton’s presidential library has come up previously.

During Senator Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, the former president declined to disclose the names of the library donors.

In an interview with The Chronicle in September, Mr. Clinton said he had previously refused to name the benefactors because many gave on the condition that they remain anonymous.

“My reluctance in the library case is not that I was ashamed of anyone who gave me money. It was because when the people gave me money, they had a reasonable expectation that their gifts would remain anonymous.

“To the best of my knowledge, I didn’t take money from anybody I shouldn’t have,” Mr. Clinton said.

The Clintons’ new roles may have consequences for the broader nonprofit world.

With such a prominent philanthropist connected closely to the State Department, federal foreign-assistance programs may work more hand-in-glove with foundations and aid groups, said Steve Gunderson, president of the Council on Foundations, an association of grant makers in Arlington, Va. “It means philanthropy will become more of a player,” he said.

But it is also likely to trigger more scrutiny of philanthropy, said Joel L. Fleishman, a professor of public policy at Duke University.

Mr. Fleishman urged Mr. Clinton to be a charity role model by announcing publicly that even though he came under pressure to reveal the names of donors, he embraces such “transparency” for himself and other nonprofit groups.

“He should take the high road,” he said.

Art Taylor, president of the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance, a charity watchdog in Arlington, Va., said he has similar hopes.

The Clinton foundation does not meet all of the watchdog’s standards, in part because its board does not have enough members or meet frequently enough. Mr. Taylor said the group should improve its governance policies as Mr. Clinton alters his leadership role.

“Clearly, the Clinton foundation could set an example because of its visibility,” he said.