A new book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” exposes a tendency for large amounts of cash paid to the Clinton's who then seem to have made decisions benefiting the sources of the money. Of course with the two-party system construct the Clinton's and allies can write off the book as a right-wing attack. This is pretty goofy in the sense that the political spectrum is so narrow in the pro-wrestling-ish drama of politics today. They are all part of the political wrestling business where they do not attempt to actually hurt one another, nor do they openly admit their scheme to anyone outside the circle.
Historically, “Of the 13 [Bill] Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.” Bill Clinton made $13.3 million for speeches in 2011 alone. The article also notes ties with the conflict in Ukraine:
from 2009 up to 2013, the year the Ukrainian crisis erupted, the Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which is headquartered in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, calling into question whether the donations were an attempt to curry favor from the US State Dept. Several alumni of oligarch Pinchuk's program have already graduated into the ranks of Ukraine’s parliament, while a former Clinton pollster went to work as a lobbyist for Pinchuk at the same time Clinton was working in government.
Another unusual example cited Hillary changing her position as Secretary of State on Columbia, after millions of donations to the Clinton Foundation from a Columbian oil-company she changed her positions and supported a US-Columbia trade deal. Another layer of questionable practices came from McClatchy noting Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates gave $40 million in donations to the CF. All of those countries are involved with terror funding and human rights violations. The Wall Street Journal reported $68 million in CF donations from "elite donors with close ties to foreign governments and state-run companies while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state."
How do these practices not appear to be a payoff to a member of the existing government mafia? The CF is revising its policies in the midst of this press fallout which is a clear admittance of questionable practices that a unlikely to do anything to retroactively remedy those donations. It will be useful funds in Hillary's second run for president, just one layer of the unfair competition in US elections.
If you are interested check out this old school character Norman Dodd who discussed revelations he had as director of research for the thwarted attempt at a congressional investigation into the activities of tax-exempt foundations.