Oct.24

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

The White House: Ballroom Donor List Will Make Your Toes Curl

Yesterday, demonstrating a level of semi-transparency that is not usually characteristic of this administration, the White House released a list of donors that have given money toward the new White House ballroom.

In addition to releasing the list, the administration tried to offer a plausible explanation for these donors' generosity, explaining that their names might be etched into some portion of the ballroom, like a pillar or a balustrade. Even if that is the "reward" and it's the ONLY reward, it's tacky for one of the most important possessions of the United States federal government to be "brought to you by"... well, anyone other than the United States federal government. That Wall of Honor stuff works OK for the local concert hall or even for a university, but not for the People's House. More importantly, we do not believe for one second that being memorialized in that way is the only thing motivating these donors to cough up to the tune of six, or seven or eight figures. Here's the list, along with a possible motivation for each:

We're obviously not right on all of these guesses. We may not even be right on most of them. But we are probably right on some of them. And, more broadly, we categorically refuse to accept that there are zero strings attached here. And whether these donors are paying for something specific, like a merger or a pardon or a patronage job, or they are just generally buying "influence," there are conflicts of interest all over the place here. This is why this particular funding scheme is a no-fly zone for federal projects—it is nearly impossible for someone to have that kind of coin to donate and NOT to have conflicts of interest.

Further, readers will notice that we described this "reveal" as semi-transparent. That is because the White House released names, but not numbers. And without numbers, it's not possible to know: (1) Which of these donors is investing their money particularly aggressively?; (2) Are these ALL the donors?; and (3) Is there a difference in the amount of money being brought in, and the amount of money being spent, such that Trump might be skimming?

Incidentally, we have asked ourselves several times if this whole thing might be basically legitimate, with the "scandal" part only existing because it happens to be Trump doing it. In other words, if this was happening under Joe Biden or Barack Obama or Bill Clinton (or one of the Georges Bush or Ronald Reagan), would it be generating this kind of blowback? After all, it's true that the White House does have big functions sometimes, and that it sometimes isn't large enough to accommodate those functions. Maybe a 19th century house really does need some updates to keep it useful in the 21st century.

However, having thought about it a lot, we think the outrage is entirely legitimate. First, there's the semi-transparency (and, by extension, the semi-non-transparency) about the funding, and the problem that strings might be attached. If this was 100% legitimate, then Congress would and should appropriate the money. Second, there's the approval process that is supposed to be followed. Other presidents would have honored that, Trump did not. Third, there are the lies. Trump said that the new structure would be freestanding, and then later said the East Wing would be only slightly modified. In fact, the entire East Wing has now been leveled. And if he lied about that, what else is he lying about?

Perhaps most concerning of all is the haste with which this has been executed. In his entire first term, Donald Trump held two state dinners. He doesn't NEED a place for big parties that urgently. Similarly, if his main goal is to leave behind a monument to his presidency, that purpose is served just as well with a completion date in 2028 or 2029 as one in 2026. We can only come up with two theories as to why speed would be of the essence.

The first of those theories is the relatively benign one—Trump is a walking id who cannot delay gratification, and when he wants something, he must have it now, now, NOW. That could be what is going on here. However, the second possibility is that he needs the room for grifting purposes. He's already held dinners that were, for example, meant to reward "investors" in his crypto venture. If he starts holding an 800-person event, say, once a month, do you know how much he could collect in "donations" for his PAC, or his library, or his... whatever?

We've seen a few pieces, like this one from Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark, that argue that the next Democratic president has no choice but to tear down the structure at the earliest possible moment. The basic idea is that it's too much an embodiment of the various cans of worms that Trump has opened, and its continued existence serves to legitimize the idea that it's OK to do things like pay for your pet projects with "donations" from people with business before the government. We see Last's point. We've written before that it will be politically tricky to actually do this, as it will look petulant to some voters. However, we've thought about it, and we have a workaround. The next Democratic president could announce that while a ballroom might be useful, this one's been inspected, and it turns out it's not properly constructed, and that it's not safe, so it's going to have to be torn down. That would give some cover, effectively using Trump's reputation for shoddy construction work and corner-cutting against him.

A couple other bits of news we'll pass along. First, the administration has updated the White House website to include renderings of, and other information about, the ballroom. Conveniently, it placed that material on the same page as the White House "Major Events Timeline," which contains 19 "major events" in the history of the White House. Ten of those cover the history of the building, like the addition of the Oval Office in 1909. Five of those describe, in breathless detail, the things the Trumps have done to make the building more bigly. And the remaining four are slurs against Democrats: Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (true), Barack Obama meeting with the Muslim brotherhood (false), Joe Biden encouraging trans people to strip down during Trans Visibility Day (false) and Hunter Biden's cocaine being found in the White House (false). This certainly contributes to our impression that this whole ballroom project isn't about the greater good, and is instead about self-aggrandizement, self-enrichment and scoring political points.

And finally, a Virginia couple has filed a lawsuit in which they will try to get a judge to stop the work being done on the White House until the proper review process has been followed. It may be the People's House, but we doubt the judge will agree they have standing to sue. Also, it would seem that the lawsuit's a little too late, and that the relevant ship has already sailed. Still, we'll be interested to read the judge's ruling, whatever it might say. (Z)