ONE OF the main problems of Hillary Clinton in her quest to become America’s first female president is voters' lack of trust in her. In December a poll by The Economist/YouGov found that 53% of respondents viewed her as dishonest and untrustworthy. Donald Trump was the only other presidential candidate whom more than 50% of those surveyed considered dishonest and untrustworthy. Mrs Clinton’s main rival, Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, was seen by 41% of respondents as honest and trustworthy, the highest score of any of the main candidates, and only 27% said they didn’t trust him. Young voters, in particular, tend not to trust Ms Clinton—and believe everything Mr Sanders, a senator from Vermont, tells them. The Clinton Foundation is one of the reasons why voters have taken such a dim view of Mrs Clinton’s integrity. Created in 1997, it is a philanthropic foundation that backs multiple charitable initiatives ranging from economic development in poverty-stricken parts of the world, to fighting climate change, the betterment of lives of women and girls and access to drugs for those who are HIV positive. These are all laudable goals and the charity has won accolades for its impressive work. The problem is that a foundation, which is led by an ex-president and someone who hopes to be elected president by the end of the year, can appear vulnerable to conflicts of interest. One of the reasons that the Clinton Foundation has become such a formidable fund-raising machine is that donors appear to hope to gain access to the corridors of political power with their gifts.

Over the past 15 years, the Clinton Foundation has raised a staggering sum, close to $2 billion, from corporate titans, foreign governments, political donors and other wealthy entities, according to an investigation by the Washington Post. Many of these donors have multiple agendas in addition to their wish to do good. According to the Washington Post, almost half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary, a lobby group promoting her presidential run this year, as well as nearly half of the so-called bundlers, the fundraisers who solicited and pooled her campaign funds in 2008, have given at least $10,000 to the foundation, directly or indirectly through foundations and companies. Donations from banks and other financial institutions account for the largest share of the foundation’s corporate benefactors. Its perhaps most controversial donors are foreign governments or other foreign entities, such as the governments of Oman and Kuwait, which are by law not allowed to give any form of donation to American politicians running for office.

At the Democratic primary debate on February 4th, Mrs Clinton had a heated exchange with Mr Sanders, who told her that being part of the establishment meant having “super PACs”, organisations that pool campaign funds, which raised $15m from Wall Street, and receiving lots of money from drug companies and other special interests. (Mr Sanders does not have a super PAC.) Mrs Clinton lost her cool, accusing her rival of “artful smear” and constant accusations through insinuation and innuendo. She strenuously denied that she has ever been bought by a political donor. Yet by being so close to Wall Street behemoths that support her family’s charitable foundation as well as her political ambitions, Mrs Clinton leaves herself open to such criticisms. The ongoing saga related to her curious use of a private e-mail server during her time as secretary of state adds to an impression of untrustworthiness for some. It would have been relatively easy for the Clinton Foundation to suspend fund-raising efforts during the campaign for the presidency. And it would have given voters one less reason to distrust Mrs Clinton.