Yes, Have a Legal Defense Fund--but Pledge to Repay Donors : Presidency: The Clintons should refuse lobbyists’ money and limit donations to $250.

My act of patriotism this July 4 was to write a check--a modest one--to the Presidential Legal Expense Trust. I hope many of my fellow citizens will join me, and I also hope the President will make some adjustments to the rules of the trust and pledge to repay the people for their assistance.

Never before has a sitting President been faced with legal proceedings involving actions taken before his election to the White House--not because all earlier presidents were squeaky-clean, but because their political opponents had not thought of this tactic. Hurtful allegations are easy to make and difficult, expensive and upsetting to defend. While you and I could just pay off a plaintiff to eliminate the nuisance and minimize the expense of a baseless lawsuit--something that is done, unfortunately, all too often--the President does not have that option. It is not just for political reasons that the President must defend his innocence; the presidency itself must be defended from the intrusion of a civil suit while a president is in office.

For that defense, the President is entitled to the best possible legal assistance. Defending the presidency requires raising constitutional issues for resolution by the highest court in the land. While not as exciting as the O.J. Simpson defense, the issues are more complex and more important. The President’s lawyers must represent not just this President, but all future presidents. And good lawyers cost lots of money. While I am willing to contribute my modest share, I am concerned that the trust will accept contributions as large as $1,000, with no restrictions on donors. That limit should be lowered to $500, if not to $250. Moreover, the President should let us know he is not for sale by announcing that the trust will not knowingly accept money from lobbyists and people who have business with the government.

From my experience as a fund-raiser, I know that it is simpler to persuade 1,000 people to give $1,000 than it is to persuade 20,000 people to give $50. But the President is not the Cancer Society or the Red Cross. People give big gifts out of generosity and commitment--and to be recognized as donors. Recognition by the President should not be bought and sold.

In addition, many citizens might hesitate to contribute because the President’s earning power so far exceeds their own. The Clintons might well earn a great deal of money after leaving the White House: writing best-selling books, serving on corporate boards, giving speeches, even practicing law. That certainly is their right. But if they do so, shouldn’t they pay back our generosity in their time of need?

I think the average citizen would be encouraged to contribute if the Clintons would make a public commitment to repay the funds, to the extent they are able to do so, into a charitable trust established for a cause--like medical or public-policy research--that would benefit all Americans.