Trump v. Clinton: The media double standard on the influence of foreign cash

On Monday, Popular Information reported that Justin Sun, a Chinese national currently being prosecuted for fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission, sent President-elect Donald Trump $18 million in cash. Sun did so by purchasing $30 million in tokens from World Liberty Financial, a crypto company backed by Trump.

World Liberty Financial planned to sell $300 million of its crypto tokens, known as WLF, which valued the company at $1.5 billion. Before Sun's purchase, the offering looked like a bust. Only $22 million in tokens had been sold. Per the terms of his deal with World Liberty Financial, Trump is entitled to 75% of proceeds from the token sale, but only after the first $30 million in tokens are sold.

So before Sun's purchase, Trump was entitled to nothing. Sun conveniently purchased enough tokens to meet the entire reserve, allowing Trump to collect 75% of the revenue of all other tokens sold. As a direct result of Sun's purchase, Trump netted over $18 million.

Trump's relationship with World Liberty Financial is a vehicle for any person or entity seeking to curry favor with Trump — foreign or domestic — to send him millions of dollars. This can be done in secret. Justin Sun decided to make his purchase public, but he was not required to do so. The next foreign national seeking to send Trump cash through World Liberty Financial could do so anonymously.

And yet, Sun's purchase of $30 million in WLF tokens has been ignored by several major media outlets. The New York Times has not mentioned Sun's purchase of the tokens, even in passing. Other major outlets, like the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal, have briefly mentioned Sun's purchase in the context of other coverage.

For some reason, the direct transfer of $18 million by a foreign national being prosecuted by the SEC to the president-elect has not been deemed worthy of meaningful coverage. This is a dramatic change from how the same outlets handled the potential influence of foreign money on other politicians.

In the leadup to the 2016 election, there was extensive coverage from every major media outlet concerning how foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation created conflicts of interest for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. This was a legitimate subject of journalistic inquiry but differed in several respects from Sun's enrichment of Trump:

1. Nearly all of the payments to the Clinton Foundation at issue occurred when Clinton was not in public office. Most of the coverage centered around donations made after Clinton left the State Department and before she launched her presidential campaign.

2. The foreign money was donated to benefit the Clinton Foundation, a charity, and not Clinton personally. The money did not go into Clinton's bank account, but to the foundation's charitable activities.

3. The Clinton Foundation disclosed its donors, even though it was not required.

4. Clinton had not been elected president.

An analysis by Popular Information reveals that between January 1, 2015, and November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the New York Times published 79 pieces that were about or referenced foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. That is nearly one story a week for 22 months.

In a February 20, 2015, column by the New York Times Editorial Board — before Clinton had formally announced her candidacy — the paper emphasized why even an indirect connection between a presidential candidate and foreign dollars was deeply problematic:

Foreign nationals are banned by law from contributing to American politicians’ campaign coffers. This ban does not apply to private foundations, but the idea behind it — that influence should not be bought — is relevant to a political campaign, where appearances can count for much.

…Substantial overlap was found between foundation contributors and familiar Clinton campaign donors and money bundlers. Considering the Clintons’ popularity and influence in their party, this is no surprise. But it does make it important that Mrs. Clinton, in defending the family’s efforts on behalf of the world’s needy, reassure the public that the foundation will not become a vehicle for insiders’ favoritism, should she run for and win the White House.

After Clinton declared her candidacy in April 2015, the Clinton Foundation reimposed restrictions on foreign donations, increased the frequency of its voluntary disclosures, and announced it would stop holding events overseas. The New York Times noted that "questions about the donations have created weeks of negative headlines for Mrs. Clinton leading up to her campaign rollout."

At the same time, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Fox News struck a deal with Peter Schweizer, a right-wing operative and frequent collaborator with Steve Bannon. Schweizer had rebranded himself as a journalist and was publishing a book called "Clinton Cash." The book alleged "that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return." Schweizer later admitted that he had no actual evidence to back up the central premise of his book. Nevertheless, the extensive coverage continued in the New York Times based on Schweizer's work.

On April 23, 2015, the New York Times Editorial Board dedicated another column devoted to foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation:

The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.

The coverage, while not revealing any evidence of impropriety, continued month after month. The Republican Party even created an attack ad based on the flood of media attention:

On August 18, 2016, Clinton announced that, if she won the presidency, the Clinton Foundation would stop taking money from corporations or foreign sources. But even that was not enough to put the issue to bed.

"The foundation’s ties to foreign governments and financiers have long been fodder for Mrs. Clinton’s critics — chief among them Donald J. Trump — who contend that foreigners used donations to the foundation to curry favor with the Clintons while Mrs. Clinton was the country’s top diplomat," the New York Times reported on October 15, 2016. That story was about a hacked email revealing that the Qatari government, who donated to the Clinton Foundation, requested to meet with Clinton. The email was treated as a potential scandal even though there was no evidence such a meeting ever occurred.

The New York Times' approach to foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation was not unique. A review of Washington Post coverage over the same time period reveals dozens of similar articles. The Washington Post, for example, highlighted the pledge to stop accepting foreign donations if Clinton won the election meant "donors could race to give money before the deadline — but in time to curry favor with a Democratic nominee who is leading in the polls."

The Washington Post finally filed a story on Sun's purchase of tokens on Tuesday afternoon. The New York Times and other outlets, however, still appear uninterested in a foreign donor personally enriching Trump after he won the presidency.