CDZ Avoiding the Appearance of Impropriety

[320 Years of History]

Note:
This thread is about the appearance of impropriety. It is not about what is legal or not legal.

What does "avoid the appearance of impropriety" mean? That's a rhetorical question; the meaning is known, accepted and widely understood in law, medicine, academia, government, and business, and it has nothing to do with actual illegal acts, obviously, because the law stipulates what's legal and what's not.

If one, as a public official, faces any situation in which one's involvement would even appear to suggest one's position is being used for personal gain, then one's duty is to avoid that situation. That's what it means to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and determining whether one's actions breach the "appearance" standard depends heavily on context. The reason for the "appearance" ethical standard is pretty straightforward: one has been entrusted to do X or Y, so one needs to appear trustworthy as well as in fact be trustworthy. Accordingly the "appearance" standard is widely applied to expand the “actual conflicts” prohibition to include appearances of conflict as well.

I think this past March was the first time I expressly introduced the "appearance" concept, and I did so with regard to Mrs. Clinton's email matter.

Well, even reading the details pertaining to her emails, it's not at all clear to me that she did something wrong. What is clear to me is that there, for now at least, the appearance of impropriety, but not any actual impropriety.

I alluded to it again this past Tuesday in connection with the newly discovered emails.

It stretches credulity to accept that one who wants mainly convenience would write about "the system [they] want." Maybe there's more context to be found in other communications about the design of the system? There sure had better be if the "convenience" claim is to "hold water" at all.

Mrs. Clinton is not alone in failing to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I exhaustively illustrated and discussed how, in his first foray into public life, Donald Trump has managed to violate the "appearance" standard via his approach to campaign management.

[T]he appearance of impropriety...exists in the way Trump is funneling [$11M] money through his campaign back to himself and getting a huge tax deduction in the process.

[You'll need to read the post to learn how you and I cannot get but Trump does get a tax deduction for his contributions to the Trump campaign.]

Elsewhere in the same thread, I wrote:

There is nothing improper in buying from your own LLC or family IMO.

There isn't. What has the appearance of impropriety is making another do so by using one's own influence to effect as much.

Looking at Mrs. Clinton's and Donald Trump's breaches of the "appearance" standard, one sees key differences and similarities in nature and extent -- past, current and future:

• Clinton:
  • The "appearance" violation with regard to Mrs. Clinton's emails is unrelated to anything having to do with personal financial gain.
  • The email matter is done and over with. There's nothing anyone needs to be concerned about in a direct way as go Mrs. Clinton's not turning over some emails or using an personal email server.
  • There's nothing to suggest she'll be in any capacity to repeat the "email" gaffes. Given all the hoopla we heard at the start of Mr. Obama's Presidency about his Blackberry, it's a fair bet that there won't be a similar issue assuming she gets into the White House again.
• Trump:
  • The "appearance" violation with regard to Trump is all about personal financial gain (minimizing personal financial outlays).
  • Trump's funneling of campaign contributions to his own businesses is unlikely to stop. Donors have plenty of reason to think their contributions to a Trump campaign may aid in filling Trump's personal coffers and those of his family members.
  • There's absolutely nothing to suggest that won't happen if he were to become President. The man owns hotels; his entourage has to stay somewhere when he's not at the White House.
• Both:
  • The "appearance" violations of both can be seen as actions taken to provide personal political gain.

In light of the above, it may well be that the VP choices for each of the two major party candidates are as important as are the Presidential candidates. Trump, if he continues his financial shenanigans could very well be impeached and convicted faster than any sitting President ever was. At the moment, we have no idea whether Mrs. Clinton will be charged for her "email" activities.

Frankly, I am beginning think we'd all be better off if the GOP and Dems sit out the remainder of the 2016 election season and let the Libertarians and Green Party battle it out. I don't think I've ever thought that the "devil I don't know cannot possibly be worse than the devil I do," but given that the "devils" I know are Clinton and Trump, I may be time for a paradigm shift....

 

[irosie91]

thanks tony, but no thanks-----we know what we have----various miserable choices------I'll take Trump-----I do not care if he houses his huge entourage in his own hotels

 

[The Irish Ram]

You over think, 320
America first vs Asia first. Vote for 1.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's obvious that RWNJs will always claim the appearance of impropriety. Even the most innocent actions will be seen as part of a great conspiracy. You do need to avoid the appearance of impropriety for the average sane person, but why worry about the nuts that actively seek something to whine about?

 

[couch protester]

You said all that just to say vote Libertarian? That was a mouth full.

When it takes a dissertation to convince us to support this unpopular party, then that means America is saying that happy with the two popular parties. Your minority party opinion is just rants and doesn't count for the majority. Learn from delusional Kashic.

 

[OldLady]

thanks tony, but no thanks-----we know what we have----various miserable choices------I'll take Trump-----I do not care if he houses his huge entourage in his own hotels

He says it's the law, he has to pay for his entourage according to campaign finance rules. He says he stays at his properties because they're the best ones. He would think that, obviously; I wouldn't know--his properties are outside the range of my pocketbook.
The other thing is, Trump doesn't have a huge entourage--according to last count, about 70? As compared to Clinton's 600+

 

[irosie91]

thanks tony, but no thanks-----we know what we have----various miserable choices------I'll take Trump-----I do not care if he houses his huge entourage in his own hotels

He says it's the law, he has to pay for his entourage according to campaign finance rules. He says he stays at his properties because they're the best ones. He would think that, obviously; I wouldn't know--his properties are outside the range of my pocketbook.
The other thing is, Trump doesn't have a huge entourage--according to last count, about 70? As compared to Clinton's 600+

Clinton has 600? 600 what? 600 is a lot of people

 

[OldLady]

thanks tony, but no thanks-----we know what we have----various miserable choices------I'll take Trump-----I do not care if he houses his huge entourage in his own hotels

He says it's the law, he has to pay for his entourage according to campaign finance rules. He says he stays at his properties because they're the best ones. He would think that, obviously; I wouldn't know--his properties are outside the range of my pocketbook.
The other thing is, Trump doesn't have a huge entourage--according to last count, about 70? As compared to Clinton's 600+

Clinton has 600? 600 what? 600 is a lot of people

Yup. Heard it on CNN or NPR or some such. She has a huge "organization," whatever that means. In comparison, they said Trump had 70.

 

[Tresha91203]

Add the Pres Clinton / Lynch meeting to the long list of appearances. I'm actively seeking the Giant Meteor 2016 bumper sticker.

 

[irosie91]

thanks tony, but no thanks-----we know what we have----various miserable choices------I'll take Trump-----I do not care if he houses his huge entourage in his own hotels

He says it's the law, he has to pay for his entourage according to campaign finance rules. He says he stays at his properties because they're the best ones. He would think that, obviously; I wouldn't know--his properties are outside the range of my pocketbook.
The other thing is, Trump doesn't have a huge entourage--according to last count, about 70? As compared to Clinton's 600+

Clinton has 600? 600 what? 600 is a lot of people

Yup. Heard it on CNN or NPR or some such. She has a huge "organization," whatever that means. In comparison, they said Trump had 70.

sheeeesh-----who-da-hell----does she think she is?
CATHERINE THE GREAT?

 

[OldLady]

thanks tony, but no thanks-----we know what we have----various miserable choices------I'll take Trump-----I do not care if he houses his huge entourage in his own hotels

He says it's the law, he has to pay for his entourage according to campaign finance rules. He says he stays at his properties because they're the best ones. He would think that, obviously; I wouldn't know--his properties are outside the range of my pocketbook.
The other thing is, Trump doesn't have a huge entourage--according to last count, about 70? As compared to Clinton's 600+

Clinton has 600? 600 what? 600 is a lot of people

Yup. Heard it on CNN or NPR or some such. She has a huge "organization," whatever that means. In comparison, they said Trump had 70.

sheeeesh-----who-da-hell----does she think she is?
CATHERINE THE GREAT?

Oh, we better not go there, Rosie--you know about Catherine the Great, don't you?

 

[Dekster]

I don't think Trump's campaign paying to use Trump properties and Trump aircraft is an appearance of impropriety to anyone except democrats. If those are owned by for-profit corporations and not Trump personally, then using them for free would likely be a violation of finance rules akin to what Aaron Schock ran into.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't think Trump's campaign paying to use Trump properties and Trump aircraft is an appearance of impropriety to anyone except democrats. If those are owned by for-profit corporations and not Trump personally, then using them for free would likely be a violation of finance rules akin to what Aaron Schock ran into.

It wouldn't be a violation if the value of the rooms, planes, etc. and the value is within the donation limits specified for the given recipient and donor.

It's actually the tax deduction that I find more worrisome than the use of Trump Organization resources. The deduction is legal, but it looks shady when a the parties to the transaction that gives rise to it are a candidate and his campaign. Were the deduction to arise from an arm's length transaction, I'd have no gripe about it.

 

[2aguy]

Note:
This thread is about the appearance of impropriety. It is not about what is legal or not legal.

What does "avoid the appearance of impropriety" mean? That's a rhetorical question; the meaning is known, accepted and widely understood in law, medicine, academia, government, and business, and it has nothing to do with actual illegal acts, obviously, because the law stipulates what's legal and what's not.

If one, as a public official, faces any situation in which one's involvement would even appear to suggest one's position is being used for personal gain, then one's duty is to avoid that situation. That's what it means to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and determining whether one's actions breach the "appearance" standard depends heavily on context. The reason for the "appearance" ethical standard is pretty straightforward: one has been entrusted to do X or Y, so one needs to appear trustworthy as well as in fact be trustworthy. Accordingly the "appearance" standard is widely applied to expand the “actual conflicts” prohibition to include appearances of conflict as well.

I think this past March was the first time I expressly introduced the "appearance" concept, and I did so with regard to Mrs. Clinton's email matter.

Well, even reading the details pertaining to her emails, it's not at all clear to me that she did something wrong. What is clear to me is that there, for now at least, the appearance of impropriety, but not any actual impropriety.

I alluded to it again this past Tuesday in connection with the newly discovered emails.

It stretches credulity to accept that one who wants mainly convenience would write about "the system [they] want." Maybe there's more context to be found in other communications about the design of the system? There sure had better be if the "convenience" claim is to "hold water" at all.

Mrs. Clinton is not alone in failing to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I exhaustively illustrated and discussed how, in his first foray into public life, Donald Trump has managed to violate the "appearance" standard via his approach to campaign management.

[T]he appearance of impropriety...exists in the way Trump is funneling [$11M] money through his campaign back to himself and getting a huge tax deduction in the process.

[You'll need to read the post to learn how you and I cannot get but Trump does get a tax deduction for his contributions to the Trump campaign.]

Elsewhere in the same thread, I wrote:

There is nothing improper in buying from your own LLC or family IMO.

There isn't. What has the appearance of impropriety is making another do so by using one's own influence to effect as much.

Looking at Mrs. Clinton's and Donald Trump's breaches of the "appearance" standard, one sees key differences and similarities in nature and extent -- past, current and future:

• Clinton:
  • The "appearance" violation with regard to Mrs. Clinton's emails is unrelated to anything having to do with personal financial gain.
  • The email matter is done and over with. There's nothing anyone needs to be concerned about in a direct way as go Mrs. Clinton's not turning over some emails or using an personal email server.
  • There's nothing to suggest she'll be in any capacity to repeat the "email" gaffes. Given all the hoopla we heard at the start of Mr. Obama's Presidency about his Blackberry, it's a fair bet that there won't be a similar issue assuming she gets into the White House again.
• Trump:
  • The "appearance" violation with regard to Trump is all about personal financial gain (minimizing personal financial outlays).
  • Trump's funneling of campaign contributions to his own businesses is unlikely to stop. Donors have plenty of reason to think their contributions to a Trump campaign may aid in filling Trump's personal coffers and those of his family members.
  • There's absolutely nothing to suggest that won't happen if he were to become President. The man owns hotels; his entourage has to stay somewhere when he's not at the White House.
• Both:
  • The "appearance" violations of both can be seen as actions taken to provide personal political gain.

In light of the above, it may well be that the VP choices for each of the two major party candidates are as important as are the Presidential candidates. Trump, if he continues his financial shenanigans could very well be impeached and convicted faster than any sitting President ever was. At the moment, we have no idea whether Mrs. Clinton will be charged for her "email" activities.

Frankly, I am beginning think we'd all be better off if the GOP and Dems sit out the remainder of the 2016 election season and let the Libertarians and Green Party battle it out. I don't think I've ever thought that the "devil I don't know cannot possibly be worse than the devil I do," but given that the "devils" I know are Clinton and Trump, I may be time for a paradigm shift....

Clinton:

• The "appearance" violation with regard to Mrs. Clinton's emails is unrelated to anything having to do with personal financial gain

This is patently untrue......there is an investigation into foreign contributions made to her private charity foundation while she was the secretary of state......and the fact that she destroyed emails under subpeona gives a huge appearance of impropriety........

 

[2aguy]

Note:
This thread is about the appearance of impropriety. It is not about what is legal or not legal.

What does "avoid the appearance of impropriety" mean? That's a rhetorical question; the meaning is known, accepted and widely understood in law, medicine, academia, government, and business, and it has nothing to do with actual illegal acts, obviously, because the law stipulates what's legal and what's not.

If one, as a public official, faces any situation in which one's involvement would even appear to suggest one's position is being used for personal gain, then one's duty is to avoid that situation. That's what it means to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and determining whether one's actions breach the "appearance" standard depends heavily on context. The reason for the "appearance" ethical standard is pretty straightforward: one has been entrusted to do X or Y, so one needs to appear trustworthy as well as in fact be trustworthy. Accordingly the "appearance" standard is widely applied to expand the “actual conflicts” prohibition to include appearances of conflict as well.

I think this past March was the first time I expressly introduced the "appearance" concept, and I did so with regard to Mrs. Clinton's email matter.

Well, even reading the details pertaining to her emails, it's not at all clear to me that she did something wrong. What is clear to me is that there, for now at least, the appearance of impropriety, but not any actual impropriety.

I alluded to it again this past Tuesday in connection with the newly discovered emails.

It stretches credulity to accept that one who wants mainly convenience would write about "the system [they] want." Maybe there's more context to be found in other communications about the design of the system? There sure had better be if the "convenience" claim is to "hold water" at all.

Mrs. Clinton is not alone in failing to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I exhaustively illustrated and discussed how, in his first foray into public life, Donald Trump has managed to violate the "appearance" standard via his approach to campaign management.

[T]he appearance of impropriety...exists in the way Trump is funneling [$11M] money through his campaign back to himself and getting a huge tax deduction in the process.

[You'll need to read the post to learn how you and I cannot get but Trump does get a tax deduction for his contributions to the Trump campaign.]

Elsewhere in the same thread, I wrote:

There is nothing improper in buying from your own LLC or family IMO.

There isn't. What has the appearance of impropriety is making another do so by using one's own influence to effect as much.

Looking at Mrs. Clinton's and Donald Trump's breaches of the "appearance" standard, one sees key differences and similarities in nature and extent -- past, current and future:

• Clinton:
  • The "appearance" violation with regard to Mrs. Clinton's emails is unrelated to anything having to do with personal financial gain.
  • The email matter is done and over with. There's nothing anyone needs to be concerned about in a direct way as go Mrs. Clinton's not turning over some emails or using an personal email server.
  • There's nothing to suggest she'll be in any capacity to repeat the "email" gaffes. Given all the hoopla we heard at the start of Mr. Obama's Presidency about his Blackberry, it's a fair bet that there won't be a similar issue assuming she gets into the White House again.
• Trump:
  • The "appearance" violation with regard to Trump is all about personal financial gain (minimizing personal financial outlays).
  • Trump's funneling of campaign contributions to his own businesses is unlikely to stop. Donors have plenty of reason to think their contributions to a Trump campaign may aid in filling Trump's personal coffers and those of his family members.
  • There's absolutely nothing to suggest that won't happen if he were to become President. The man owns hotels; his entourage has to stay somewhere when he's not at the White House.
• Both:
  • The "appearance" violations of both can be seen as actions taken to provide personal political gain.

In light of the above, it may well be that the VP choices for each of the two major party candidates are as important as are the Presidential candidates. Trump, if he continues his financial shenanigans could very well be impeached and convicted faster than any sitting President ever was. At the moment, we have no idea whether Mrs. Clinton will be charged for her "email" activities.

Frankly, I am beginning think we'd all be better off if the GOP and Dems sit out the remainder of the 2016 election season and let the Libertarians and Green Party battle it out. I don't think I've ever thought that the "devil I don't know cannot possibly be worse than the devil I do," but given that the "devils" I know are Clinton and Trump, I may be time for a paradigm shift....

• The email matter is done and over with. There's nothing anyone needs to be concerned about in a direct way as go Mrs. Clinton's not turning over some emails or using an personal email server.

Patently wrong....she broke federal law by having an unsecured private server which she used for top secret government information.....and just the transmission of secret documents over that server was a felony........

There's nothing to suggest she'll be in any capacity to repeat the "email" gaffes. Given all the hoopla we heard at the start of Mr. Obama's Presidency about his Blackberry, it's a fair bet that there won't be a similar issue assuming she gets into the White House again.

I had to double check to see if this thread was in the CDZ.....otherwise I would word my reply less generously.....you are seriously delusional.......she will not only repeat these "gaffes" but the crimes she will repeat will make these email crimes look like child's play.....she will set up a private server from day one when she gets into office...why would you think she wouldn't..........she told staff she wanted to avoid FOIA requests and accountability........when she is selling the Presidency she will need the same things....

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh, we better not go there, Rosie--you know about Catherine the Great, don't you?

 

[Dekster]

I don't think Trump's campaign paying to use Trump properties and Trump aircraft is an appearance of impropriety to anyone except democrats. If those are owned by for-profit corporations and not Trump personally, then using them for free would likely be a violation of finance rules akin to what Aaron Schock ran into.

It wouldn't be a violation if the value of the rooms, planes, etc. and the value is within the donation limits specified for the given recipient and donor.

It's actually the tax deduction that I find more worrisome than the use of Trump Organization resources. The deduction is legal, but it looks shady when a the parties to the transaction that gives rise to it are a candidate and his campaign. Were the deduction to arise from an arm's length transaction, I'd have no gripe about it.

It probably cost $2700 to start the jet engines. I don't really understand your logic on the other. I doubt Trump is buying influence with himself. Those "arm's length" things seldom happen.

 

[irosie91]

thanks tony, but no thanks-----we know what we have----various miserable choices------I'll take Trump-----I do not care if he houses his huge entourage in his own hotels

He says it's the law, he has to pay for his entourage according to campaign finance rules. He says he stays at his properties because they're the best ones. He would think that, obviously; I wouldn't know--his properties are outside the range of my pocketbook.
The other thing is, Trump doesn't have a huge entourage--according to last count, about 70? As compared to Clinton's 600+

Clinton has 600? 600 what? 600 is a lot of people

Yup. Heard it on CNN or NPR or some such. She has a huge "organization," whatever that means. In comparison, they said Trump had 70.

sheeeesh-----who-da-hell----does she think she is?
CATHERINE THE GREAT?

Oh, we better not go there, Rosie--you know about Catherine the Great, don't you?

well ----I have read the gossip-------uhm----a little sleazy like the stuff going on the WH when Hellary was queen

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't think Trump's campaign paying to use Trump properties and Trump aircraft is an appearance of impropriety to anyone except democrats. If those are owned by for-profit corporations and not Trump personally, then using them for free would likely be a violation of finance rules akin to what Aaron Schock ran into.

It wouldn't be a violation if the value of the rooms, planes, etc. and the value is within the donation limits specified for the given recipient and donor.

It's actually the tax deduction that I find more worrisome than the use of Trump Organization resources. The deduction is legal, but it looks shady when a the parties to the transaction that gives rise to it are a candidate and his campaign. Were the deduction to arise from an arm's length transaction, I'd have no gripe about it.

It probably cost $2700 to start the jet engines. I don't really understand your logic on the other. I doubt Trump is buying influence with himself. Those "arm's length" things seldom happen.

Red:
Did you click on the link? There was no logic involved. I merely stated the fact that is the nature and extent to which in-kind contributions can be made without violating campaign finance rules.

Blue:

"Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."
-- Luke 22:42​

Sweet Jesus! Please, please inspire folks to carefully read what I write before they remark upon it.

Where did I intimate or say that Trump was using the money he contributed to his campaign to buy influence? Did you read the content I wrote and linked to? Did you overlook all that I wrote about the way loans work with the tax code and how that generates deductions?

I'll tell you what...contact the Trump campaign and see if they'll accept a loan from you. I can tell you now they most likely won't. They will accept a donation from you. That donation is not tax deductible. I don't have a problem with Trump loaning his money to his campaign. I have a problem with him doing so, then directing his campaign to buy services and goods from his own companies or affiliated companies, and then Trump's taking a tax deduction for the loan on his personal income taxes.

Were any other candidate to loan their campaign money, they'd either get repaid or they'd take a deduction for bad debt, but wouldn't use their loaned money to buy goods/services from themselves, thereby boosting sales in their own company with their own money. As I said in the post were I detailed all that stuff, it's a very complex set of financial accounting and tax accounting moves that a non-accountant would not readily understand, not because they can't understand it, but because they haven't been trained to understand it or recognize it. That's why I made an effort to try to explain it. If I recall correctly, I only explained the tax side of the matter. I didn't explain the financial accounting side because Trump's companies are privately held.

To understand it more readily, it may help if, instead of thinking of each entity/person involved as just being Donald Trump, when/if you re-read my post explaining the details, you think of the situation in terms of:

• Company A
• Political Campaign B
• Individual Taxpayer/donor C

The reason for thinking of them that way is because Donald J. Trump, Trump Organization LLC and Donald J Trump for President political campaign are three legally separate entities.

That they all have the Trump name on them certainly does add to the confusion for the non-accountant layman. That a non-CPA/accountant won't inherently "get it" is perfectly understandable. That a non-CPA is going to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about or, at the very least, not ask questions seeking clarification for the bits they don't follow is not pardonable. The idea that anyone, accountant or not, is going to raise the idea that I said something about Trump buying influence with his campaign donations, something I didn't say or hint at, in an effort to discredit or discount the merit and veracity of my remarks is rude, irresponsible and thoroughly disingenuous. That latter tack is the approach of cad, curs and charlatans and you should be ashamed for having attempted it.

Now if you or someone else care to point to a section of the IRS Code that shows I've based my detailed discussion on one or several facts that are no longer so, that's fine. Were you to do so, I'll readily admit my mistake. I will also revise my remarks and/or conclusions as needed given the nature of the error.


Pink:
I think you should check into the veracity of that statement. Among privately held companies and individuals, you may be right. Among entities of the the size the Trump Organization is, the vast majority if not all transactions are "arms length." Certainly among publicly traded companies that is so; it has to be so for were it not, companies would not receive "clean" audit opinions. Most if not all transactions that receive favorable tax treatment also must be arm's length transactions.

Now, it might be that Trump won't take the bad debt deduction for his campaign loans. We won't know that until he releases his tax returns for 2015 and 2016, if he ever does. Given Trump's demonstrated lack of integrity and willingness to "do anything" to come out ahead, to "win," do you think he won't? I damn sure don't.

 

[chikenwing]

thanks tony, but no thanks-----we know what we have----various miserable choices------I'll take Trump-----I do not care if he houses his huge entourage in his own hotels

He says it's the law, he has to pay for his entourage according to campaign finance rules. He says he stays at his properties because they're the best ones. He would think that, obviously; I wouldn't know--his properties are outside the range of my pocketbook.
The other thing is, Trump doesn't have a huge entourage--according to last count, about 70? As compared to Clinton's 600+

Clinton has 600? 600 what? 600 is a lot of people

Yup. Heard it on CNN or NPR or some such. She has a huge "organization," whatever that means. In comparison, they said Trump had 70.

sheeeesh-----who-da-hell----does she think she is?
CATHERINE THE GREAT?

Good indication on how each run their stairs,one a horribly flawed candidate with a bloated staff,or also a flawed candidate mostly through perception,but runs with a more stream lined staff.
Which one off hand would a smart person think would have the same dynamic if elected?

Business efficiency?
Government bloat and inefficient?