A friend asked me whether I was concerned at all that Mar-a-Lago is apparently doubling its membership fees. The short answer is that I am not terribly concerned by what seems to be a reasonable business decision that is neither motivated by corruption, or likely to move the influence-needle in any case. If more people want to stay at Mar-a-Lago because Trump is president that’s not his fault. Just like it’s not Obama’s fault that people want to buy his book because he’s president or pay him to speak. And just like it’s not Hillary’s fault that people want to donate to the Clinton Foundation because she was Secretary of State and president-anointed (and stopped donating the moment she lost). I’m much less troubled by the transparent and generally accessible membership fees to Mar-a-Lago than the behind the scenes informal clubbishness that typically dominates the influence market.
In any event, during the course of our discussion, I googled “Clinton Foundation Closing” because I thought it was on par, if not worse, evidence of “pay to play” (that I don’t actually find that troubling) and this is what I saw:
Literally not a single progressive news site to be found. No one in the establishment media (other than Fox) thought it was newsworthy that the Clinton Foundation determined to shut its doors following Hillary’s electoral loss. No bias there . . .