Many Americans may be surprised to learn that every president of the modern era has awarded about 30 to 40 percent of ambassadorships to political appointees — often deep-pocketed campaign contributors giving enormous sums to a president, his party and its candidates.
These donors typically lack any meaningful credentials for their positions. They commonly have zero diplomatic experience, don’t speak the language, and may not have even traveled to the country in question. And time and time again, they create embarrassing problems abroad: from a deterioration of foreign relations to allegations of misconduct, mismanagement and workplace bullying.
This practice is contrary to the law. While it’s perfectly legal for appointees to make political contributions, a post-Watergate statute prohibits ambassadorial nominations because of contributions and sets a minimum standard of competency for the position. But that hasn’t stopped presidents of both parties from using ambassador posts to reward donors and fundraisers.
President Biden promised to break from this practice during his candidacy. “Nobody, in fact, will be appointed by me based on anything they contributed,” he told reporters. “You have some of the people out there … that are fully qualified … who may or may not have contributed,” he said, but he insisted that contributions “would not be any basis” for appointing ambassadors.
A new analysis of campaign finance data from Campaign Legal Center shows that all but one of the noncareer ambassadors President Biden has appointed are political contributors, many of whom evidently lack the qualifications required by federal law. These 55 nominees contributed more than $22.5 million to Democratic committees in the 10 years before their nomination, at an average of more than $400,000 apiece. Many were also substantial “bundlers” for the Biden campaign — fundraisers who collect donations from others and deliver them to the campaign committee together.
For Switzerland and Liechtenstein, Biden nominated a banker with a “big name in Democratic money” who, with his husband, had contributed more than $3.3 million to Democratic committees in the 10 years prior. The State Department’s official profile and competency certificate for the banker don’t mention any diplomatic experience, ties to Switzerland or Liechtenstein, or knowledge of their languages.
For Canada, President Biden nominated a Comcast executive who oversaw the telecommunications giant’s multimillion-dollar lobbying operation in Washington. In the 10 years before his nomination, he and his wife contributed more than $1.35 million to Democratic committees. The Comcast executive’s competency certificate also does not mention any diplomatic or foreign policy experience whatsoever.
One of Biden’s “donor ambassadors” was even rejected in a prior attempt. He was first nominated to be ambassador to Norway in 2014 by then-President Obama, after he bundled $988,550 in contributions. The donor’s confirmation hearing was a disaster: he flubbed basic facts about the country, and in a rare turn of events, he withdrew his nomination amid widespread derision.
Yet he continued making hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to Democratic committees. And when Biden became president, the donor was nominated to be ambassador to Greece. The Senate confirmed him last year.
The often-plush trappings of an ambassadorship are deceptive. In reality, the ambassador’s relationship with their host country is key to American interests at home and abroad.
Argentina, for instance, is “diplomatically challenging,” according to a former National Security Council staffer. Despite its status as a multibillion-dollar U.S. trade partner, “it’s a country with a government that isn’t reflexively pro-American, on the verge of some very difficult economic and, potentially, political times … It’s at a crossroads and the ambassador would really play a role in nudging Argentina one way or the other.”
President Biden nominated a Texas lawyer for that post. This prolific Democratic fundraiser, who personally contributed “at least $1.5 million” to various Democratic committees, is not publicly known to have had relevant language skills, ties to Argentina, or any foreign policy experience whatsoever before being nominated.
Legal guardrails, such as requiring that the State Department be specific about potential ambassadors’ credentials and shoring up accountability for ambassadors in office, would help to plug the donor-to-ambassador pipeline. But the president and the Senate could also just stop sending unqualified political donors abroad in the first place.
Without meaningful reform, this unseemly system will continue to undermine confidence in the seriousness of American diplomacy. Our foreign relations are at constant risk without experienced diplomats at the helm, with in-depth knowledge of statecraft and the politics of their assignments. It is past time to put an end to this longstanding and bipartisan practice.
Roger Wieand is senior researcher at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit government watchdog group.