IN NOVEMBER 2016 the ‘initiation fee’ to join Donald Trump’s Florida club, Mar-a-Lago, cost a cool $100,000 plus tax.

On January 1, 2017 the fee doubled to $200,000. The change, which coincided with the ascendancy of Donald Trump to the position of President of the United States, could be considered an early indicator of what was to come.

Mar-a-Lago members that got in before election day haven’t been spared either, the annual fee went up from $14,000 to $16,000 in the months since Mr Trump’s inauguration, and a ticket to the New Year’s Eve bash at the club rose in price by $175 per person.

As President, as in business, it seems Mr Trump is always looking for a way to cash in.

The President’s significant business interests have become the focus of ethics watchdogs, Congressional Democrats and campaign finance hawks as the Trump family continues to do business and wield influence while occupying an extremely close proximity to the President.

Scott Amey, General Counsel for the Project on Government Oversight — a nonpartisan watchdog — says the President’s financial dealings are a genuine concern.

“We urged President Trump to divest himself from all of his business interests to ensure the American public that he was working for them and not in the interest of his brand and personal wealth,” he told news.com.au. But that hasn’t happened.

Rick Claypool, a research director at Public Citizen, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, agrees.

“The array of conflicts is so vast, it’s difficult to choose just one without obscuring the scale of the crisis created by Trump’s refusal to divest his holdings and fully remove himself from his business empire,” he said.

Trying to separate out all the different streams of Mr Trump revenue is almost impossible, and although Mr Trump has resigned from his leadership positions across the families hundreds of companies, his assets and income are in a changeable family-controlled trust, not a ‘blind’ trust, outside of the President’s control — as is usually the case.

“As long as the President and his family continue to control and profit from their private business interests, the public has no assurance that the President’s financial self-interest doesn’t trump all other policymaking priorities,” Mr Claypool says when asked how the public can have confidence in the President’s decision making.

So, just how tangled is this web?

PROFITS FROM FOREIGN POWERS

To get an idea of how difficult it is, it’s useful to consider the reluctant revelation in March that since the Inauguration, the President has donated $151,470 to the United States Treasury, which the Trumps say is the profits made from the Trump Organization doing business with foreign governments.

The amount is just a drop in the ocean of revenue, and without detail about how the figure was arrived at, it’s impossible to say that it’s a comprehensive representation of the money the Trump Organization is making through dealings with foreign governments.

MORE: Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt meets with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago

MORE: How much is Ivanka Trump worth?

What’s more, the donation came with a statement from the President’s son, Eric Trump. “Although we are not legally obligated to do this, we have pledged to account for all profits from foreign government business at our hotels and clubs and have donated that money back to the United States of America,” he said.

“We understand the bigger picture and believe it is simply the right thing to do.”

The reason the Trumps are willing to part with the foreign government profits is possibly because it is an attempt to put some distance between the family’s business dealings and the ‘Emoluments clause’ of the United States Constitution.

The clause is obscure, but it essentially bars the President from accepting gifts or inducements from foreign governments, and while it’s never been tested in court, there is now a legal challenge based on the clause underway. As part of the suit, 23 Trump businesses have been ordered to retain all records to enable proper scrutiny of transactions.

The business — including Mar-a-Lago — must retain the records after they received subpoenas from the Attorneys-General in Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Mr Amey says the clause could cause real problems for the President.

“There is a possibility that the courts will find a violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses, especially his ownership interests in hotels. President Trump could be forced to surrender those benefits or have them approved by Congress.”

REVENUE FROM CLUBS AND HOTELS

Aside from the membership price hike, Mar-a-Lago is also enjoying a significant boom in business since the 2016 election.

Although it is difficult to properly track the President’s income, since he refuses to release his tax returns, government ethics office filings show that in 2017 Trump claimed $37 million income from Mar-a-Lago, up from $29 million in 2016, and $15 million in 2015.

The most recent filing, made public in June of this year, counts revenue from Mar-a-Lago at around $25 million.

The Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. opened not long before Mr Trump won the presidency and has enjoyed the patronage of Trumps supporters, foreign and domestic, since day one.

It is a popular spot for fundraisers, dinners and functions, and in 2017, Trump claimed over $40 million in income from the hotel. Mr Claypool cites one “especially concerning” example that brings policy and government contracts together.

“The for-profit prison corporation GEO Group, a federal contractor which stands to profit from Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ immigrant detention policies, [paid] to hold its annual leadership gathering at Trump’s Miami resort,” he says.

Mr Trump’s golf courses in Florida, New Jersey and Scotland are also significant earners.

Mr Claypool says it’s the hotels that could trigger the emoluments clause of the constitution. “Just last month, the Philippine ambassador celebrated the 120th anniversary of his country’s independence at Trump’s D.C. hotel. These examples clearly violate the spirit of the constitution, though it is uncertain how this question will play out in court,” he told news.com.au

What’s also concerning, according to both Mr Amey and Mr Claypool, is that the hotel is in a building leased by Mr Trump from the government.

“I’m very concerned with the government’s management and administration of the Trump D.C. hotel that is a short distance from the White House, and hope that any rent adjustments benefit taxpayers and not the President or his family,” Mr Amey said.

“The conflict created by having an agency adjust rent on a property leased by the President is new and should be reviewed from all angles to protect the public.”

Mr Claypool goes even further in his criticism.

“The Trump hotel in Washington, D.C., occupies a building owned by the U.S. government, making Trump, essentially, both landlord and tenant. Foreign governments and interest groups are using the space to hold events, and it’s not possible to see these uses of the property as anything but shameless attempts to curry favour with the President,” he says.

According to Newsweek, special interest groups and political groups held more than 40 events at Trump properties in 2017, spending over $1.2 million.

The Centre for Responsive Politics is tracking spending at Trump properties by political interest groups and says that in the 2016 and 2018 election cycles groups have spent almost $16 million so far.

CAMPAIGN AND GOVERNMENT SOURCES

During the presidential election, Mr Trump chose to use his own airline to jet from appearance to appearance, and in so doing was able to bill his campaign, and the Secret Service, for the costs. The ethics filings show revenue from the airline up from $3.6 million to over $6 million.

Due to a law forbidding the Secret Service from receiving benefits from protectees, the service also pays for accommodation and transportation at Trump properties, which means the President is being paid by the people who protect him, to protect him. One such cost, for golf buggies in Florida and New Jersey, topped $137,000.

Critics of the President say these costs could be significantly reduced if the President limited his trips to Trump properties and spent his working days at the White House and his holidays at Camp David, like former presidents.

Between winning the presidency in November 2016 and becoming President in January 2017 — the transition — Trump campaign funds paid $258,000 in rent and bills for use of Trump Tower in New York, the money came from the campaign, not the Federal Government, after ethical questions about the propriety of such an arrangement were raised.

Either way, it ended up back with the Trump family.

OTHER REVENUE

In the scheme of things, an extra couple of hundred thousand dollars in royalties from Mr Trump’s books might not seem like much. But since his candidacy for president took off, Mr Trump has enjoyed a significant boost in royalty payments as people all over the world snap up copies of The Art of the Deal.

Mr Trump also claimed revenue from royalties from Getty images and a new online store selling Trump-branded merchandise earned more than $107,000 in the first months of its operation.

THE TRUMP FAMILY

As President, Donald Trump is required to abide by ethics rules and file documents that enable the public to keep tabs on his personal income streams.

His sons, Eric and Don Jnr, are under no such obligation and as Mr Trump’s companies are privately held, there’s little clear information out there about the ways the Trump sons might be benefiting from their dad’s powerful position. Ivanka is in a more delicate position, as an adviser to the President, she’s got to follow government disclosure and ethics rules.

Eyebrows were raised when Ivanka’s request for seven new trademarks in China was approved around the same time as her father promised to help out a beleaguered Chinese telecommunications company earlier this year.

However, some have claimed the unusual timing was purely coincidental.

Abigail Klem, president of the Ivanka Trump brand, said in a statement to the New York Times that the brand’s protection of trademarks was “in the normal course of business,” especially in countries where trademark infringement was rampant — there are apparently more than 10 Ivanka Trump trademarks in China that are not related to her.

Before her father assumed the presidency, Ivanka also found herself in trouble for spruiking the jewellery she wore on 60 Minutes.

Her 2017 ethics filing revealed she’s made over $12 million since early 2016 from various business interests, including a guaranteed $1.5 million a year while she serves in the White House. Her 2018 filing shows a $3.9 million income from her stake in the Trump D.C. hotel alone.

Mr Amey says even if the Trumps aren’t required to be transparent about their financial dealings, they should be.

“The President would be wise to show all of his and his family’s cards. They should make anything even remotely touching on a personal business interest publicly available. As is often said in Washington, ‘sunshine is the best disinfectant’,” he said.

NOT AS BIGLY AS HE’D LIKE

Despite the many ways outlined here that Mr Trump and his family is benefiting from the relationship between his business interests and his political power, the man himself took a hit on Forbes’ billionaire list this year. The magazine estimated a $400 million drop in Mr Trump’s fortune and cited his polarising political presence as a key factor.