Quantcast
Connect with us

How rich people like Gordon Sondland buy their way to being US ambassadors – 5 questions answered

Published

on

In every other developed democratic country, the role of ambassador, with only very rare exceptions, is given to career diplomats who have spent decades learning the art of international relations.

In the U.S., however, many ambassadors are untrained in diplomacy, and have simply bought their way into a prestigious post.

The involvement of the American ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, in the Ukraine scandal has prompted interest in the media and Congress in the role of non-career ambassadors like him.

ADVERTISEMENT

On Oct. 30, U.S. Rep. Ami Bera, a Democrat from California, introduced legislation that would require at least 70% of a president’s ambassadorial appointments to come from the ranks of career Foreign Service officers and civil servants.

Career appointees have to spend decades working their way up through the ranks in government before being nominated, as I did before becoming ambassador in Mozambique and later in Peru.

Bera’s bill likely does not have the support in Congress to ever be enacted. More importantly, it does not address what I think is the real problem with political appointee ambassadors. That is the selling of the title in exchange for campaign contributions to people who are clearly unqualified for the job.

While this is a time-honored practice used by presidents of both parties, it has arguably gotten worse under the Trump administration.

Gordon Sondland, left, walks to a secure area of the Capitol to testify as part of the House impeachment inquiry.
AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

1. Who picks ambassadors?

The Constitution says nothing about the qualifications required to be an ambassador. All it says is the president can appoint them with the advice and consent of the Senate.

ADVERTISEMENT

In other words, a president can appoint whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants.

The Senate can refuse to confirm a nominee, but that has not happened in over a century. Instead, occasionally the Senate will refuse to vote on the nomination and the nominee languishes until either the Senate does decide to act or the White House withdraws the nomination.

That kind of delay is not uncommon, but it is almost always due to policy disputes between the two branches, rather than anything to do with the qualifications of the person being proposed for an ambassadorship.

ADVERTISEMENT

2. Who’s qualified?

Deciding what qualifies someone to be the personal representative of the president abroad is therefore almost entirely up to the president.

During the Nixon administration, the president’s personal lawyer asked the wife of a wealthy department store owner for a US$250,000 campaign contribution in exchange for the ambassadorship to Costa Rica. She famously replied, “That’s a lot to pay for Costa Rica, isn’t it?” She eventually went to Luxembourg as ambassador, and shortly thereafter wrote checks to the Nixon re-election campaign that added up to $300,000.

ADVERTISEMENT

That overt quid pro quo prompted the passage of the Foreign Service Act of 1980.

The act states that those appointed to be an ambassador “should possess clearly demonstrated competence to perform the duties of a chief of mission,” including knowledge of the language, history and culture of the country.

It added that, given those requirements, such positions “should normally be accorded to career members of the Foreign Service, though circumstance will warrant appointments from time to time of qualified individuals who are not.”

ADVERTISEMENT

It also stressed that “contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual as a chief of mission.”

3. How many ambassadors are career diplomats?

Despite its intended purpose, the act did little to change how business was done in Washington.

The percentage of political appointee ambassadors only went down very slightly, hovering around 30% after the act was passed.

The one exception was the Reagan administration, which got the figure up to 38% by sending Reaganites to places like Rwanda and Malawi, where normally only career ambassadors would dare to tread.

ADVERTISEMENT

The question of percentages of political versus career ambassadors is one that sometimes attracts media interest, mainly because it is always higher than the usual 30% in the early part of any presidential term. That percentage cannot really be calculated in a meaningful way until the end of a term, because most political appointments are made in its first years.

For example, the percentage of political appointee ambassadors under Trump currently stands at about 45%. However, Trump has left 10 posts vacant that have always been filled by career ambassadors.

Another seven posts that would be career slots are in countries where relations have been downgraded or suspended, such as Venezuela and Bolivia. Most of those embassies will likely be filled by career people at some point.

ADVERTISEMENT

In terms of posts that are normally held by career diplomats, there are only six – Croatia, Chile, Poland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Fiji – that currently have political appointee ambassadors.

4. How much does an ambassadorship cost?

While some political appointees are political allies and friends of the president, for many postings – particularly in Western Europe and the Caribbean, where 80% of the ambassadors are political appointees – who gets the job depends on money.

Even after the Foreign Service Act was passed, political contributions continued to play such a role that it was possible to estimate how much more London would cost than Lisbon. The larger a country’s economy and the number of tourists that visit it, the higher the price of becoming ambassador.

And for those who want to add a fancy title to their resume and have the money, a six or even seven figure price is not too high.

ADVERTISEMENT

For his first inauguration, President Obama put a limit of $50,000 on contributions. President George W. Bush capped his at $250,000.

For Trump, the sky was the limit and the floodgates were opened for those who wanted to buy access or influence. More than 250 donors gave $100,000 or more, which amounted to over 90% of the $107 million that was collected for the inaugural festivities.

Though Sondland had not backed Trump in his bid to be the Republican candidate, he contributed $1 million after the election to Trump’s inaugural committee.

Under Trump, it’s not just the posts in rich countries and tropical paradises that are for sale. United Nations ambassador Kelly Craft and her husband contributed over $2 million to Trump’s election campaign and inauguration. She also gave generously to over half the Repubican senators on the Foreign Relations Committee that had to approve her nomination.

ADVERTISEMENT

So while the percentage of political-appointee ambassadors may not increase all that much by the end of Trump’s current term, the price for buying one certainly has.

I think this practice of selling ambassadorships is unlikely to change, despite the image it creates abroad when a person with no knowledge of a country is put in charge of the American embassy there.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren has said she will appoint no big donors as ambassadors – period. But when I have contacted the campaigns of every other person seeking the nomination to ask if they would make a similar pledge, I have been met with silence. That is because in Washington money does the talking.

[ Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter. ]The Conversation

ADVERTISEMENT

Dennis Jett, Professor of International Affairs, Pennsylvania State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s damage to the federal government is driving voters to turn to more liberal candidates: report

Published

on

According to a report from Politico, Donald Trump's tenure has not resulted in voters becoming more conservative, and instead, he is driving them into the arms of more liberal and progressive candidates at the local level who are then using their newfound power to change Democratic policies at the national level.

Trump's negative influence is turning into a positive for those candidates -- particularly in the big cities.

"From New York City to Los Angeles, many of the nation’s biggest cities have turned even harder to the left under President Donald Trump, putting pressure on local officials to embrace the leading progressive presidential candidates — or withhold their endorsements entirely for fear of antagonizing newly energized activists," the report states. "It’s a drastic political shift in some places, where for decades entrenched party bosses crushed any signs of life on the left or tended to put the weight of big-city institutional support behind Democratic establishment-oriented candidates."

Continue Reading

Facebook

‘Not true’: Manic GOPer Mark Meadows shut down by CNN’s Bash for repeating lie about Ukraine

Published

on

A fifteen-minute CNN interview with Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) wound down to an abrupt end on Sunday morning as the "State of the Union" host Dana Bash cut off the Trump defender's insistence there was no quid pro quo offer from the president to Ukraine's leadership, with the CNN host telling the GOP lawmaker, "That's not true. I don't want to debate about it."

In an interview where Meadows continued to rage about former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter, Bash finally brought up Trump's phone call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky that led to the impeachment inquiry.

Discussing the call where Trump asked for a favor, Meadows pushed back after she said Trump, "Allegedly held up aid and he said it in this phone call."

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

GOP’s Collins demands delay in impeachment hearing after being overwhelmed with Dem’s massive case against Trump

Published

on

Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) has demanded that Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) postpone a scheduled House Judiciary Committee hearing slated for Monday after being blindsided by a massive report from the Democrats on the committee making the case for the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

According to Newsmax, Collins -- who has become one of the president's main surrogates opposing ouster of the president -- fired back at the Democrats over their Saturday release of thousands of pages of documents to be considered from the House impeachment investigation.

Continue Reading