In the deliberately complex world of politics, where the line between legal donations and unethical influence is often blurry, one of the more insidious methods of bypassing transparency and accountability is through “behest donations.”

These are donations made to third-party organizations—such as charities or political action committees (PACs)—that ultimately benefit the political figures who influence or solicit them. This practice allows lobbyists, corporations, and individuals with business before the government to fund lavish perks and expenses while obscuring the true source of the funds.

The use of behest donations has raised significant concerns over the years, especially among powerful political figures who are in a position to help their benefactors with favorable legislation or government contracts.

One of the more prominent examples of this practice involves former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his use of funds channeled through non-profit charities funded by lobbyists and individuals with business interests before the government.

What Are Behest Donations?

Behest donations occur when a public official directly or indirectly encourages a third party, like a charity, to receive a donation for the benefit of the official, their families and friends,  or their activities. These donations can be made to organizations that ostensibly serve public or charitable purposes but are often used to fund things like travel, accommodations, and events that indirectly benefit the official’s personal or political life. The key feature is that while the funds are technically donated to an independent organization, they are specifically solicited or requested by the politician.

How Behest Donations Bypass Regulations

Behest donations are effective at bypassing transparency regulations because they involve intermediaries. By making the donation to a charity or a PAC, the politician can avoid directly receiving the funds, which would be classified as a bribe. This indirect route can make it much harder to track where the money is coming from and, more importantly, who it is ultimately benefitting.

Because charities and non-profits are generally not required to disclose their donors like political campaigns must, it is easier for donors with business interests before the government to quietly support an elected official. In exchange for these generous gifts, the donors may gain favor or influence with the politician, all while maintaining the appearance of legitimate, non-political contributions.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Charitable Contributions and Travel Expenses

Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s use of charitable donations to cover personal and political expenses provides a stark example of how behest donations work in practice. During his time in office, Schwarzenegger was widely known for his close ties to powerful lobbyists and business figures. Many of these individuals were engaged in industries directly affected by state policies and decisions.

One notable aspect of his administration was his reliance on non-profits funded by lobbyists and business interests to cover his travel and entertainment costs. The Schwarzenegger Foundation, for example, was involved in receiving funds from major corporate donors with significant stakes in California’s business and regulatory landscape. These donors, some of whom were engaged in industries like real estate, energy, and entertainment, would often contribute to Schwarzenegger’s charitable initiatives, knowing their support could help them build a favorable relationship with the governor.

The Arnold Schwarzenegger Foundation paid for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s private jet flights between Sacramento and Santa Monica Airport. The foundation, a non-profit organization established by Schwarzenegger, received significant donations from corporate donors during his time as governor. These donations were used to fund various activities, including the private jet flights Schwarzenegger used for personal and political purposes. This raised ethical concerns, as the funds were ostensibly meant for charitable purposes but were also being used to cover travel costs for the governor. The situation led to criticism over the potential conflict of interest and lack of transparency surrounding the foundation’s financial activities.

These donations were not always explicitly used to fund the governor’s personal expenses. Still, many were funneled into expenditures that would benefit him or his administration. For example, Schwarzenegger was known to have taken international trips funded by the foundation, which were often described as “business” trips. While ostensibly aimed at promoting the state’s interests abroad, these excursions were also used to cover the governor’s personal travel, meals, and leisure activities. The charities funded by corporate donors would pick up the tab, effectively disguising what amounted to political bribery.

The Ethical and Legal Implications

Politicians’ use of behest donations to cover personal or political expenses is not illegal in many jurisdictions, as long as the contributions are made to third-party organizations and not directly to the official. However, this practice raises serious ethical questions. It becomes increasingly difficult to discern whether the contributions are truly for charitable purposes or if they are a way for wealthy individuals to gain access to and influence over political figures.

The danger of behest donations lies in their ability to perpetuate a system where elected officials are beholden to the very industries they are supposed to regulate. In Schwarzenegger’s case, his relationship with big donors potentially allowed them to influence policy decisions in their favor. At the same time, he enjoyed lavish perks funded by the people he was supposed to oversee.

Both sides of the aisle…

The Clinton and Trump Foundation have been the subjects of intense scrutiny and controversy, with critics pointing to potential conflicts of interest, unethical practices, and even illegal activities related to their donors and operations. While both foundations have insisted that their missions are charitable and philanthropic, the flow of money, particularly from wealthy individuals, foreign governments, and business interests, has raised suspicions of political influence, quid pro quo arrangements, and financial mismanagement.

The Trump Foundation was also accused of using donations to promote Donald Trump’s political image. In one instance, the Foundation made a $25,000 donation to a political group supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was then investigating fraud claims against Trump University. The donation, which came from the Trump Foundation, was made just before Bondi decided not to pursue legal action against Trump University, raising suspicions of a quid pro quo arrangement.

The donation to Bondi’s political group created a clear appearance of using charitable funds for political purposes, which is illegal under IRS rules. This raised concerns that the Foundation was being used to further Trump’s political ambitions, rather than to serve charitable causes.

In December 2018, the Trump Foundation agreed to dissolve and distribute its remaining assets, and Trump was ordered to pay $2 million in damages for misusing the Foundation’s funds.

Bottom line…

While using behest donations as a vehicle for political bribery may not always violate the letter of the law, it certainly undermines the spirit of fair governance. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the non-profit charities funded by lobbyists and business interests demonstrate how the system can be manipulated to fund personal expenses while obscuring the true source of political influence.

Any donation to an organization that directly benefits a politician or their associates should be treated as a political contribution, subject to the same disclosure and limitations as campaign donations.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve