When Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of state, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation received a donation of half a million dollars from a Russian investment bank that received approval from the State Department to purchase valuable uranium assets. This prompted former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to say that “it looks like bribery.” Many other Republicans have since leveled similar accusations.

As the presidential campaign heats up, it’s inevitable that everyone trying to become the nation’s chief executive will be the subject of a great deal of criticism from other candidates, the media and the public at large. Most voters discount much of it as just so much negative campaign noise, and they’re probably wise to do so. For her part, Hillary Clinton, the presumptive front-runner to be the Democratic presidential nominee, is no stranger to political conflict, and she insists that this latest controversy is just the latest in a long line of tired, baseless attempts by Republicans to smear the Clintons.

But here’s the problem. The criticism of the Clinton Foundation’s questionable financial practices is not confined to the usual partisan suspects. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times have run lengthy articles that have raised significant questions about how the Clinton Foundation has done business, and those questions aren’t as easily dismissed as Hillary Clinton might like. Certainly neither the Post nor the Times can be accused of being house organs for the GOP.

And consider Jonathan Chait, a prominent left-wing political columnist who famously wrote an essay about how he personally hated former President George W. Bush. While conceding that he “will almost certainly vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016,” Chait detailed at length the Clinton Foundation’s massive conflicts of interest produced by foreign donors with business before the State Department contributing money to the foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. He concluded these issues provide “legitimate reasons for undecided voters to doubt her and her husband’s commitment to good government.”

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton insist there is no proof of wrongdoing and/or law-breaking, and they are correct. And while there has been a reluctance on Mrs. Clinton’s part to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves, we applaud the fact that the Clinton Foundation has now changed its policy to limit foreign contributions. We hope it will respect the American people enough to answer additional questions rather than try to discredit those who ask them.