The Obama administration will claim this is no big deal. After all, previous US administrations, both Democrat and Republican, have also rewarded major donors with plum diplomatic posts. Barzun’s predecessor, the Eurofederalist Louis Susman, a Chicago chum of Barack Obama, had no diplomatic background whatsoever, but had raised $300,000 for the 2008 Obama campaign. As White House press secretary Robert Gibbs glibly noted at the time of Susman’s appointment in 2009, he was qualified for the ambassadorship “because he speaks English.” The last career diplomat to hold the London post was Raymond Seitz, during the George H.W. Bush administration.
But long-standing precedent doesn’t mean the practice of rewarding party fundraisers is in any way ethical or right, and it certainly doesn’t serve American interests. In many Western countries, this kind of appointment would be viewed as an unacceptable form of corruption, a dangerous linkage between political patronage and political fundraising. If David Cameron were to appoint a major Conservative Party donor or fundraiser to the post of British Ambassador to Washington there would be a huge public outcry and a political backlash big enough to bring down the Coalition. In fact such a move would be unthinkable.
As The Financial Times has reported, “since the start of his second term, Mr Obama has nominated more than 10 key fundraisers to be ambassadors.” Alongside Barzun, Obama has picked key fundraisers for prestigious posts in Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria, Denmark and Singapore. And, as a Guardian analysis has found, “the average amount raised by recent or imminent appointees” has soared to a staggering $1.8 million per post, a figure that has raised eyebrows among long-serving US career diplomats, with one senior former ambassador describing the grubby practice as “simony,” or the selling of public office. According to The Guardian study:
In total, nine sought-after postings in Europe, the Caribbean or Asia have been given to major donors in recent weeks, with a further three in France, Switzerland and Hungary earmarked to come soon. Of these 12, the precise bundling data is available for 10. According to a Guardian analysis, using the figures leaked to the New York Times, the average amount raised by each donor is $1.79m.
Official campaign finance records give only minimum figures for how much each donor raised among friends and family (a process known as bundling). Even using the published 'minimum' donations declared for these bundlers, the amount raised by donors rewarded with foreign postings has soared. The appointees to those same 10 embassies raised at least $5m in 2013, compared to a minimum of $3.3m in 2009, at least $1.3m under George W Bush in 2005 and at least $800,000 for Bush donors in 2001.
It is very clear from these figures that the Obama presidency is in a different league to previous administrations in terms of rewarding big-time donors. This is a practice that is highly damaging to America as a democracy, with the clear suggestion that government appointments can be bought by wealthy individuals. It will only serve to further undermine public confidence in the federal government, already at historically low levels, while undercutting both the image and influence of the United States on the world stage.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100224994/barack-obama-insults-britain-again-with-a-shameless-nomination-of-top-donor-as-us-ambassador-to-london/
https://www.facebook.com/almaamoun.keita
