Ethical Concerns About Mrs. Clintons Ties With the Clinton Foundation (Reaction Paper Sample)

Institution
Name
Instructor
Date
Ethical concerns about Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, ties with Clinton Foundation
Introduction
Ethics is an important aspect of human life that governs people’s behaviors. Public figures and government officials should behave ethically in all their activities. However, without ethical behavior, the person’s public reputation will get damaged. This is the case of Mrs. Hilary Clinton. During President Obama’s first term in office, she appointed Mrs. Hillary Clinton the secretary of state from 2009to 2012. During her time as the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton used her capacity to solicit funds for her foundation, the Clinton Foundation. She used her private email and top State Department aides to seek for donations to her foundation. This raises an ethical concern.
Case Description
Chozick, & Eder (2016) noted that Mrs. Clinton and her foundation. Clinton faced accusation of favoritism towards donors of Clinton Foundation during her tenure as the secretary of state. Besides, her foundation received donations from countries that have been accused of sex discrimination, facilitating militant cells as well as other human-rights issues. These countries include Saudi Arabia that has donated between $10 -$25 million to the foundation has been accused of promoting hard-line strain of Islam and militant cells.
Clinton also used her capacity to seek a donation of USD $10-$25 million from Victor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma, whose government was largely accused of murder of journalists and corruption. Clinton’s family welcomed Mr. Pinchuk to a dinner in their home in the year 2012 when Mrs. Clinton was the Secretary of States. Pinchuk’s company, Interpipe was allegedly involved in dumping cheap steel tube into America market (Chozick, & Eder, 2016). Through private emails, Clinton used her government aides like Huma Abedin, her chief of staff to help and favor those who have donated to her foundation. Abedin provided Clinton Foundation special donors, who have donated $25,000 to $10 million, expedited and special access to Mrs. Clinton. For instance, Huma Abedin organized a meeting between Daniel Abraham requested for a meeting with Mrs. Clinton was offered immediate access to Mrs. Clinton (Judiciary Watch, 2016). More than half of the people (at least 85 out of 154people) from private interest groups that Hilary Clinton met during her Secretary of State tenure directly donated to Clinton Foundation (Toh, 2016).
Literature review
The Hilary Clinton ethical case is worth analyzing in ethical approaches, legal and professional perspectives. Ethically, Clinton case can be viewed in terms of Deontology (norms), axiology (values), and teleology (results). Deontological ethics as proposed by Kant provides that any human being has a universal rational duty towards others, focusing on the duty to respect humanity of others. Kant noted that every human being is inherently worthy of dignity and respect. Hence each human action should be based on rules that respect humanity (Misselbrook, 2013). Deontology explains the morality of an action in terms of non-consequentialist principles (May, 2014).
On the other hand, axiological ethics are ethics of values. The ethics of values is thinking and acting in professional role, towards friends, acquaintances, enemies, family role, and in actions oriented for both long term and short term goals. This ethical perspective is focused on impacting on all areas of the human manifestation (Kowalski, 2015). Teleological ethics is a theory of morality which derives moral obligation from what is desirable as the end result achieved. Teleology holds that the criterion for determining the desired result of an action is the moral good over bad consequences such action brings (Yao & Eigenmann, 2013).
In terms of legal perspective, Clinton’s case can be viewed on federal legislations that govern ethics among government officials. Title 5 CFR 2635.702 of the United States Code prohibit government officials/employees from using their public office for their own personal gain, for private gain of relatives, friends, or any other person the employee has an association with in nongovernmental capacity, including even an organization the employee is a member or officer (Legal Information Institute, n.d). Therefore, Mrs. Clinton’s actions have direct violation of this code.
Ssonko (2010) defined public service professionalism as values which encompass all values which guide the public service. These values include transparency, impartiality, loyalty, and diligence. Public Service Professionalism is focused on the notion that people who work in public service should be conversant with basic skills and shared values to conduct their duties professionally. The professionalism works through a rationale that public servants need to be fair, impartial, competent, neutral, and serve the general public interest while performing their duties (p.7).
Primary research
This study relied on primary research conducted through direct face-to-face interview of respondent using questionnaire forms. Six respondents were interviewed. Among the respondents, one was female while five were male. Five respondents observed that it was not right for Mrs. Clinton to use her private email to seek donation for her foundation. The respondents noted that it was unethical because she held a public officer that requires high level of morality. One respondent viewed Clinton Foundation as a private business which poses a conflict of interest. However, one respondent observed that if it was a private email which was used to seek donation, then it was right. All the six respondents also noted that government officials should not use their government aides to champion personal interest. Government aides should concentrate in serving the public. Five respondents observed that Clinton was wrong to continue associating with Clinton Foundation while she was the secretary of state. However, one respondent noted that she was right to do so if she did not use her capacity to seek government donations.
Five respondents rated Clinton’s ethical conduct as “very poor” while one respondent rated her as “poor”. All respondents also believe that government is not doing enough to control ethical conduct of its employees. For instance, a respondent said that Clinton is “running for president instead of sitting in a jail cell.” Four respondents observed that Mrs. Clinton can improve her ethical conduct and public image by retiring from politics. One respondent noted that she should take ethical classes. One respondent noted that she should not use government backdoors for personal gains.
Case analysis
From the research it is evident that people believe that Hilary Clinton acted unethically by using her capacity as secretary of state to seek donations for her foundation. She used her capacity to champion personal interest which was a conflict of interest being that she was an influence government official. It is worth observing that Mrs. Clinton failed to observe ethics of norms, values, and results. Additionally, she violated the Title 5 CFR 2635.702 of the United States Code.
In terms of deontology, the ethics of rights or justice, it is clear that the Clinton Foundation received donation from donor that have done injustices and violated people’s rights. For instance, her foundation received a donation of USD $10-$25 million from Victor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma, whose government was largely accused of murder of journalists and corruption (Chozick, & Eder, 2016). Being that by then, Mrs. Clinton was the Secretary of State, the senior most office in U.S., she was a powerful official in the U.S government that has the norm of fighting injustices and defending human rights that was allegedly perpetrated by Leonid Kuchma.
Mrs. Clinton did not observe ethics of values or care (axiology). As the Secretary of State, her foundation received donations from donors who have been accused of facilitating violent crimes yet she was a U.S government official that should be committed to keep Americans safe. For instance, Clinton Foundation received donations from countries that have been accused of sex discrimination, facilitating militant cells as well as other human-rights issues. These countries include United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei. Specifically, Saudi Arabia that has donated between $10 -$25 million to the foundation has been accused of promoting hard-line strain of Islam and militant cells (Chozick, & Eder, 2016). This conflicted with Mrs. Clinton’s duties and responsibilities of keeping America and the whole world safe.
Mrs. Clinton did not observe teleological ethics (results). Teleological ethics judge an action as morally good/right if its end results have good consequences over the bad ones. Mrs. Clinton’s actions of using her capacity as the Secretary of States to arrange for meeting with donors with questionable activities would eventually lead to evil consequences over the moral good. It is worth noting that Clinton’s family welcomed Mr. Pinchuk to a dinner in their home in the year 2012 when Mrs. Clinton was the Secretary of States (Chozick, & Eder, 2016). It is likely that the friendship between Clinton’s family and Mr. Pinchuk could have led to the alleged dumping of a cheap steel tube on the Americ...