The first is to make a career in policy or diplomacy and gain lots and lots of experience related to foreign affairs. The second is to have money. Lots and lots of money.
Running for president is really expensive, and presidential candidates in both parties require massive fundraising machines to bankroll campaigns that are becoming all the more so. A pattern has emerged under modern Republican and Democratic administrations alike where presidents will tap deep-pocket campaign donors or “bundlers” who directly donate or help raise hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for the winning presidential candidate for plum ambassador posts.
Successive administrations argue that these donor ambassadors have the requisite skills and experience—even if outside the realm of foreign policy—through their work in philanthropy, finance, business, politics, or other career paths.
Critics of the practice, including former senior career diplomats, say it’s a form of “thinly veiled” corruption.
[That pattern goes back much farther than the current election-fundraising model used in presidential contest, which we should remember only goes back to 2008. In that cycle, Barack Obama became the first major-party candidate to opt out of the public-funded, spending-limit system established after Watergate and created that need for massive fundraising. Even prior to that, a significant percentage of ambassadorial posts went to fundraisers and cronies, with the key strategic slots usually reserved for real diplomatic experts. The percentage of the cronies has grown since 2008 changed presidential elections. — Ed]
Join the conversation as a VIP Member