Sen. Cornyn Goes Partisan on Day One

Yesterday, Sen. John Cornyn objected to a voice vote confirming Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State for the Obama Administration forcing a three hour debate today on the question of her husband's charitable foundation accepting foreign funds (Senate Confirms Seven Obama Cabinet Picks).  Pres. Obama and former Sen. Clinton worked out a deal whereby all foreign donations would be disclosed annually.  But this isn't good enough for Sen. Cornyn who thinks that a foundation that focuses on international issues and action, such as HIV/AIDS, economic opportunity and climate change (see The Clinton Foundation: Explore Our Work for more information), should not be allowed to accept foreign donations.  That's absurd.  The disclosure mechanism is a good method of oversight and allows for the type of transparency that Sen. Cornyn claims to desire from government in a private foundation.  I think it's important to keep an eye on donations to the Foundation but there's no reason to hamstring its good work by limiting foreign donations. 

One way you can tell when a senator is making a political play compared to actually doing their job representing their people is that they don't tend to post news releases to their websites when they're being political.  For instance, Sen. Cornyn posted a letter he wrote to Sen. Clinton on the question of the Clinton Foundation the other day, but he hasn't posted anything about his quixotic obstruction of the Clinton nomination. 

Here's what Sen. Cornyn posted about the situation a few days ago:

“I remain deeply troubled that America’s foreign policy and your diplomatic mission will be encumbered by the sweeping global activities of the Clinton Foundation … unless tighter foreign fundraising restrictions and transparency protocols are adopted by your husband’s organization,” Sen. Cornyn, a longtime champion of open government and transparency reforms, wrote in the letter. “Put simply, the Foundation’s refusal of foreign-source donations while you serve as Secretary of State is in this nation’s interest. But I am willing to consider other options to reduce the likelihood of real or perceived conflicts of interest that will result from foreign donations.”

Sen. Cornyn is grandstanding and playing partisan politics and doing it in an absurd manner, wasting the Senate's time on a pointless debate that only delays the confirmation of former senator Clinton as Secretary of State. We've got more serious work to focus on now.  Sen. Cornyn made his point in committee, by speaking out to the press, in his letter to Sen. Clinton and on his website--once he made his point, he should have deferred to his former colleague.  I generally haven't had much good to say about Sen. Cornyn's work representing Texas, serving as our AG or serving on the Texas Supreme Court but I haven't spoken out about him that much.  Unfortunately, since he's taken on the roll of GOP Senate cheerleader, his efforts have become more actively toxic and so I think it's become more necessary to talk about his actions.

This doesn't really add much to the story but I thought I would add that Sen. Cornyn and (Almost) SOS Clinton had a public disagreement on the topic yesterday (Capitol Conflict:  Cornyn v. Clinton):

Clinton and Cornyn talked intently and gestured meaningfully at the entrance to Statuary Hall, moments after Barack Obama was sworn in. This attracted the attention of reporters who had been staking out Obama’s lunch with congressional leaders and noticed the two hashing something out 50 feet away.

Later, we learned that the pair had an intense, if civil, exchange about Cornyn’s decision to block a “unanimous consent” motion that would have allowed the incoming secretary of state to be approved unanimously with other Obama Cabinet nominees.