Donald Trump to remain executive producer on 'Celebrity Apprentice'


#1

Donald Trump will continue to hold the title of executive producer for the television show “The Celebrity Apprentice” after taking office, foreshadowing an unorthodox presidency in which the commander in chief has a hand in the world of reality TV.

Such credits in Hollywood often come with a paycheck, though the representative did not disclose whether Trump will be compensated.

The show helped catapult his global celebrity. Trump was given a 50 percent ownership stake in the show and was paid, at the start, $100,000 an episode for hosting. Trump has claimed that he was paid more than $213 million for the reality show over the course of its run.

Ethics experts expressed dismay on Thursday that Trump’s ongoing relationship with the show creates a needless complication, particularly if the president is receiving a paycheck from a major entertainment company. Government ethics officials have said that Trump should divest himself of his private business interests to avoid conflicts of interest in office.

“We need him to be president - full time - and not to have other contractual commitments elsewhere,” said Richard Painter, who served as ethics counsel to President George W. Bush. “He’s testing the limits on everything.”

Norm Eisen, who served as ethics counsel to President Barack Obama, said that Trump will “be tempted, consciously or otherwise, to favor NBC or use the White House to promote this source of revenue.”

“It is one more example of why he must do what every president has done for four decades: divest all his interests into a blind trust or the equivalent,” Eisen said.

chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-celebrity-apprentice-20161208-story.html


#2

Word


#3

Ethics experts?

Let’s hear their thoughts on the Clinton Foundation and then we’ll talk.


#4

Unless you think the Electoral College is going to choose a Clinton on Dec 19, their foundation has nothing to do with this. This is about Donald Trump remaining an executive producer of a network reality TV show and by extension his other business practices as they relate to ethics. Not the Clintons.


#5

I’ll remember that the next time someone says “Clinton won the popular vote” and “Trump is not my president”.

Can’t have it both ways! :nope:


#6

What harm could it do? :slight_smile: :neutral_face:


#7

Mr. Trump will be my President on Jan 20, 2017 even though I didn’t vote for him. Just like Mr. Obama was, Mr Bush was, Mr Clinton was, etc. Unlike many, I do not think only the people I voted for or who are members of the same political party are my President,.

That being said, I also hold my President (and all politicians currently or about to be in office) to a higher fiduciary standard than I hold regular people. They should have to follow the same financial restrictions I, as an employee have to follow when it comes to conflicts of interest, insider trading, second jobs, and gifts.

So while Mrs. Clinton did win the popular vote (annoying those ‘facty’ things), I will not be one of those who say Mr Trump is not my President. I hope you never said that about Mr. Obama.


#8

:thumbsup:


#9

All this concern is because we live in the age of the Imperial Presidency. Many expect Trump to divest of all business interest because the US president is so powerful he can exert considerable influence over almost anything. It shouldn’t be like this. Congress should make the law and the president should simply be enforcing it. This sort of ethics standard makes plenty of sense with judges, who exert supreme power in court cases. And even with them the power is limited to the realm of their particular court cases. It only makes sense for presidents because they unconstitutionally exert supreme power over almost everything.

“We need him to be president - full time - and not to have other contractual commitments elsewhere,” said Richard Painter, who served as ethics counsel to President George W. Bush. “He’s testing the limits on everything.”

Actually the best president or any other kind of political figure is one who isn’t spending all his time governing, which generally means making our lives worse and his better. This guy should have counseled Bush about the evil of lying a country into wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed Christianity in the region.


#10

From the article:
Ethics experts expressed dismay on Thursday that Trump’s ongoing relationship with the show creates a needless complication, particularly if the president is receiving a paycheck from a major entertainment company. Government ethics officials have said that Trump should divest himself of his private business interests to avoid conflicts of interest in office.
Where were the cries of outrage as President Obama collected millions in royalties for his books? Certainly Obama should have divested “himself of his private business interests to avoid conflicts of interest in office.”

Yeah, right. Fake outrage and rank hypocrisy.


#11

The radio report I heard on this a few hours ago said his decision on this was all about the royalties from a program he did help create. Not that I think this is a particularly classy move.


#12

Sorry, SL, but I’m not gonna let that one just slide on by. This is a total straw man argument, whose sole purpose is to direct the conversation AWAY from what Trump is doing.

If you think it’s perfectly fine for Trump to divide his time between running the most powerful nation on the planet and running a television show, then just go ahead and say so. Why try to deflect the conversation to discussing the loser of the election, or the media?

:shrug:


#13

Reminds me of one of my favorite essays from high school, Civil Disobedience.

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

— Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

Thoreau held that government was not potentially corrupt and unjust, but rather that it was an agent of corruption and injustice. I guess you are only allowed to peddle the White House influence for a profit before or after leaving office. While in office you can only trade on future consideration [wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more].

Most of what is done is a facade of ethics. It something to make influence peddling look remote, but almost every politician trades influence for some type of consideration. The difference here is that atleast we know who it might be. I guess people prefer the system where money is slipped into politicians hands with a smile and a handshake. To pretend that all previous presidents, senators, house members, et cetera were these paragons of ethics is naive. If they really were then why have none of them banned lobbyists?


#14

I seriously doubt that he will spend much time running the show. And believe he will be the producer in name only.


#15

Interesting points…

We have come a long – and perhaps dangerous – way from our founding. This is largely due to the insane speed in which our lives have changed since the industrial revolution. Possibilities have arisen that no one in their right mind could have imagined in the late 1700’s.

How do we move forward? Those in power want nothing to do with any legislation that limits their current powers and privileges, nor those of their party in the future.

Governments and empires come and go throughout history. It’s anyone’s guess how much longer this American experiment will be able to last. As “anti-establishment” as Trump is, I just don’t see him being the anti-federalist to turn things around. Of course, Our Lord is constantly working through all of us “cracked vessels” – so who knows what the next four years will bring?

:shrug:


#16

Thank you both for giving me more to think about. :slight_smile:


#17

exactly!


#18

Regarding corruption look at how the questions surrounding Hillary and the Clinton Foundation were characterized as ‘pay for play’. I thought we had a perfectly good word for this, if true, bribery.

Our system by its nature rewards politicians who make decisions that benefit narrow interest groups for a limited time. The reward is wealth given from the group that receives that reward. When you have an all powerful state the opportunities for politicians to personally enrich themselves is nearly endless. No laws will overcome the essential problem of having the influence to peddle. The more powerful the state the more influence created to be bought and sold.

I think the explanation for how we got here is material wealth and an abandonment of principles. If you look at the history of Israel you see patterns of blessings and curses. Blessings when doing right and curses when doing wrong. When man is blessed he tends to forget about God and live for himself. This leads to curses. The curses tends to straighten out our mind. We then live right and receive blessings. History is chastisement. We get the government we deserve. Things will improve but not after we receive the severe chastisement we deserve.


#19

That’s probably true. In my mind, the main issue isn’t the time spent but the money made.

Honestly, I’m not sure why we haven’t seen more people worried about this. I think many of Trump’s detractors have been so distracted by his potential racism that they have overlooked the far more likely issue of his conflict of interest in financial matters.

Obama and Clinton aside, I think it is reasonable to expect the President—who wields such influence over matters of financial regulation—to be divested of particular business interests. I imagine that will be difficult for Trump as I don’t see him as being ready to retire or to stay out of the decision making process for his Trump brand.

Is he likely to run the country into the ground just to nominally increase the ratings for Celebrity Apprentice? I doubt it. But I think it does raise issues of greater significance over conflict of interest for elected officials. We shouldn’t brush those aside simply because we are glad that Clinton lost or because of Obama’s books and Clinton’s Foundation.


#20

What IS he doing exactly? Since he’s not president yet …

The opposition’s biggest claims that it isn’t about time, but about influence. Was it ok for President Obama to have a business interest with a book publisher, but not for Trump to have a business interest with a TV show?

Now, I’m certainly NOT saying what Trump is doing is acceptable. I do think he should step down. But it is no worse than President Obama’s relationship with his publisher.

Exactly. But I still think he should jettison his connection. While I don’t think it will amount to much of anything, it is unseemly.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.