A Redundant Purchase of Access

I’m not remotely as fired up as some people seem to be about the Stephanopolous Affair, perhaps because I’m in denial about how bad the 2016 presidential candidate debates will likely be, with or without George’s involvement.

But one thing does puzzle me. If the idea here is that there is a “conflict of interest” because Stephanopolous contributed to the Clinton Foundation to curry favor with his former White House overlords, what kind of access does anyone think a $75,000 charitable contribution will buy that four years of sitting next door to the Oval Office hasn’t already secured? And if we’re worried about bias, there are surely more egregious partisans in line to moderate debates than this guy. As Jonathan Chait notes today, Stephanopolous “has spent his journalistic career (effectively) rebutting the presumption that he remains loyal to the president that made him famous.”

That may make him an ingrate, but $75,000 sure won’t buy him absolution.

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation

Ed Kilgore

Ed Kilgore, a Monthly contributing editor, is a columnist for the Daily Intelligencer, New York magazine’s politics blog, and the managing editor for the Democratic Strategist.