With the recent revelation of Paul Manafort's, Donald Trump's now-ex-campaign CEO, connections to pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists, much is being called into question of both Hillary and Donald's connections to foreign forces during and surrounding campaign seasons. Depending on which side of the aisle you sit on, people tend to be focusing on different aspects of either candidate. Republicans are more likely to want Hillary to "return every penny from foreign donors," whereas Democrats are quick to point out Trump's friendliness towards Vladimir Putin and Manafort's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict as evidence that Trump himself would be a pro-Russian puppet. The real story though isn't how corrupt Hillary and Donald are, but rather how normal foreign contributions have become over the years.
According to the FEC, "Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S." However, a quick peruse of PACs formed in the wake of the Citizens United decision shows a large amount of campaign contributions that can only be attributed to external forces. As far back as 2009, the Sunlight Foundation discovered that Agents of foreign clients had spent millions on fees for thousands of lobbying contracts. Whether direct or indirect (and more likely the latter), the reality of a seemingly regulation-less campaign finance system has allowed foreign nationals to gain influence and power over American politicians and American elections. Lobbying on behalf of foreign nationals in 2008 totaled approximately $200m, with surely more raised in the years since.
Hillary Clinton specifically has come under fire for her interconnectedness amongst the global elite. Defenders will say these connections come from a lifetime of work in the international community and with the Clinton Foundation. However, critics point out the very real threat of their monetary influence on her, her Presidential campaign, and on the 2016 election. The Clinton Foundation has announced in recent weeks that should Hillary Clinton win the Presidency, the organization would cease accepting foreign contributions. However, the concern still remains that contributions in the meantime would more than make up for lost fundraising.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, is just as guilty of sucking up to foreign powers. His defenders will likely claim it's only part of doing business internationally, and his connections make him more apt to be President because of it. However, the fact remains that foreign politicians have had to outright tell Mr. Trump to stop "begging them for money." Regardless of Trump's knowledge of Manafort's past dealings, the reality also presents itself that a person very close to the Trump candidacy had worked intimately with foreign forces with prerogatives differing greatly from domestic policy goals. Essentially, a force friendly to the Russians would have been extremely valued in the cabinet of the President of the United States.
Without proper campaign finance regulation, there is no way to stop these types of foreign contributions to the American election cycle. Every nation in the world has a stake on the outcome of the American Presidential and mid-term elections. However, our government still remains one of its' citizens, and not one of foreign money. Without an overhaul of campaign funding, the conflict of interest will never fade from either party, and who politicans can be held accountable to will remain questionable at best.
