The Trump Organization Says It’s ‘Not Practical’ to Comply With the Emoluments Clause
May 25th, 2017Via: The Atlantic:
Days before taking office, Donald Trump said his company would donate all profits from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury, part of an effort to avoid even the appearance of a conflict with the Constitution’s emoluments clause.
Now, however, the Trump Organization is telling Congress that determining exactly how much of its profits come from foreign governments is simply more trouble than it’s worth.
In response to a document request from the House Oversight Committee, Trump’s company sent a copy of an eight-page pamphlet detailing how it plans to track payments it receives from foreign governments at the firm’s many hotels, golf courses, and restaurants across the globe. But while the Trump Organization said it would set aside all money it collects from customers that identify themselves as representing a foreign government, it would not undertake a more intensive effort to determine if a payment would violate the Constitution’s prohibition on public office holders accepting an “emolument” from a foreign state.
…
In a statement accompanying his letter, Cummings said the president had two options if his company could not adequately track payments from foreign governments. One would be to do what Democrats and independent ethics officials have long urged: fully divest from his businesses. Short of that, Trump could submit a proposal to Congress asking for its consent to a different arrangement.
The president has given no indication he intends to do so, and his attorneys have described his decision to donate foreign government profits to the Treasury as voluntary, since they argue the president is not subject to the emoluments clause of other conflicts-of-interest laws governing most federal employees. Ethics experts in both parties, however, have disagreed with that interpretation. “Rep. Cummings is right,” tweeted Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “This is a wholly inadequate response to the president’s constitutional violations.”
