One of the latest firestorms of the social media-driven presidential race are calls for the Clinton Foundation to shut down due to – as yet unproven – conflicts of interest. But these calls, like Donald Trump’s demand on Monday that it close, are missing an essential point about the foundation’s work: if it disappeared, those helped by the work it supports could fall through the widening cracks of our unequal global society.

Worldwide, the foundation, which has raised over $2bn, employs more than 2,000 people and had a 2015 budget of over $223m, focuses on initiatives that cut the costs of Aids and malaria drugs, supply pediatric drugs for Aids and for diarrhea (a more important initiative than people may know), test and distribute mosquito nets, help women and girls become entrepreneurs, provide seeds and equipment to farmers, replant trees and, in the United States, partner businesses with local government to help create health and wellness initiatives.

What makes the foundation different from other charities is that, as a public foundation and not a private charity, they do the work themselves rather than funneling money to others, dividing their efforts between development, health access, health matters and climate change. The Clinton Foundation also implements programming for foundations that donate to them because they are able to do the work the other foundations don’t have the infrastructure or international influence to do themselves.

Whatever questions may be raised about the extent to which Clinton Foundation fundraising would become a conflict of interest should Hillary Clinton win the presidency, charity watchdog groups have put the operational finances consistently in the 80 to 89% range for charity spending versus overhead, which is a highly rated percentage in the field.

Does that mean the foundation shouldn’t change anything it does if Hillary Clinton becomes president? It has been announced that it will stop accepting foreign or questionable donations, that Bill Clinton would cease to fundraise and resign from the board, and that there would be a firewall erected between family and foundation. These are all sound decisions.

They may affect the foundation’s finances anyway. The foundation has essentially leveraged the Clintons’ popularity into a fundraising powerhouse for initiatives that span the globe. It’s easy, therefore, in this environment of hyper-partisan politics, where often absurd and baseless accusations are thrown against the wall to see if they will stick, for Secretary Clinton’s supporters to become concerned about an appearance of impropriety and call for change.



It’s important they remember, however, that real lives could be affected. If supporters call for the initiatives to be turned over to other NGOs, which ones should pick up the mantle? Which ones are working successfully on health, development, equality and climate change? What other groups can absorb and finance the programs, support the health workers, the educators, the partners on the ground, or show up to challenge drug companies as the Clintons, often through sheer force of will, have been able to do when they make the companies drop prices to what someone in Africa can afford?

Other presidents have had conflicts of interest. They’ve managed them with blind trusts and financial firewalls. If the Clinton Foundation can do the same, there’s no reason why it can’t continue its work. If it cannot continue, however, whether due to political perception or more serious factors, time must be given for the diverse initiatives to find a home so that the vulnerable are not harmed in the interest of politics over the greater good.