Suddenly, the “Emoluments Clause” in the U.S. Constitution is a topic of hot debate and with good reason: A billionaire real-estate mogul with scores of foreign financial-business connections has just been elected president.
An emolument means “any salary, fee or profit from employment or office.”
Constitutional scholars and political leaders, both Democrat and Republican, are urging Donald Trump to divest himself of his assets, to place them in a blind trust under management of an independent financial trustee.
Trump has said he will let his three adult children run his business while he concentrates solely on running the country. It’s a facetious solution, at best. As if his children are strangers who will not have daily discussions with their father about “Say, how are things going in the business these days?”
Trump even claims the emoluments clause does not pertain to presidents. Actually, he has a point, technically, because there are some scholarly disagreements on that score. However, throughout American presidential history, there has been a long tradition of presidents abiding by the emoluments clause – that is, being very careful not to accept any payments or gifts from foreign powers.
The Founding Fathers, those who wrote the U.S. Constitution, were painfully aware of corruption in the “Old World” – how gifts, payments and bribes brought favors for kings and higher-ups from rich people in their own countries and in foreign governments – the kinds of “bribes” that can influence policies. One can argue that is already happening in the United States, what with powerful domestic lobbyists like the National Rifle Association.
But these kinds of inducements to corruption are especially dangerous if they come to influence heavily foreign-policy decisions, including war-making powers.
The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of the risks of a free country, that freedom has a down side sometimes. Alexander Hamilton wrote this in the Federalist Papers: “One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.”
This is what the U.S. Constitution states, the so-called Emoluments Clause:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
Many American presidents were so sensitive about conflicts of interest through gifts from foreigners they voluntarily rejected them or gave them back. For example, President Andrew Jackson was given a gold medallion by Colombian President Simon Bolivar. Jackson asked for Congress’ advice about the medallion and was told he could not keep it.
Trump’s presidency is highly unusual, historically unusual because of his vast wealth and foreign connections. He would do well to set up a blind trust – and quickly – or his entire presidency could be sullied, possibly to the point of impeachment efforts.
Trump may do some good things as president, but lingering doubts about conflicts of interest will cast a shadow on everything he achieves, no matter how good – or bad.
