Why would anyone pay as much as $500,000 for a painting by a previously unknown American artist named Hunter Biden? Mainstream media aren't asking that question, so I will.
A New York art gallery owner will auction off Hunter's artwork to anonymous buyers for prices expected to range from $70,000 to $500,000. But again, why would anyone pay that kind of money for paintings by someone who produces his works by blowing paint through a straw? I'll avoid further comment except to note that the president's 51-year-old son is a recovering drug addict.
Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who was a senior ethics adviser to former President Obama, said the secret art auction raises serious ethical questions. "I'm not very happy about it, and I would have done it differently," he said. "The core principle is transparency. Any arrangement where things are kept secret, people just don't trust." Skeptics might call it influence peddling.
A Wall Street Journal editorial echoed Painter and said "the White House is reportedly working with Hunter's attorney on a strategy to avoid ethical compromises. Here it is: Keep everything secret. Yes, for real, that's the plan." Painter added that "the absolute best way for Hunter Biden to proceed would be to postpone selling his artwork until his father is no longer in public office," and I agree.
A Journal columnist, Holman Jenkins, speculated that people who buy Hunter's art might tell him "who just bought his art," and a buyer could possibly "turn up later as Hunter's guest at a White House event," thereby casting doubt on his father's promise to conduct "the most ethical administration" in American political history.
We should be concerned about Hunter Biden's latest commercial venture because of his previous connections to corrupt Ukrainian, Chinese and Russian businesses. He was paid as much as $80,000 per month by a corrupt Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, even though he had no experience in the energy business. And then there were those questionable million-dollar investment deals involving shadowy Chinese, Mexican and Russian companies, currently under investigation by federal – that would be Biden's Justice Department – and state authorities.
As Jenkins noted, Hunter's business dealings are "ludicrously detailed, well-documented revelations from (his) laptop published over the last nine months by the New York Post and Britain's Daily Mail," even though our mainstream media have tried to ignore the laptop's sordid, and possibly illegal, revelations. "Our 'newspapers of record' (the New York Times and Washington Post) become something else when they conspire to deny facts and hide truth," Jenkins concluded.
So we might suspect, as the Journal and Jenkins do, that Hunter Biden is selling access to the White House by means of a secret art auction. The conservative newspaper offered some wise advice: "Hunter can keep on painting, but for at least the next four years the best advice his father could give his son would be to do it for art's sake, not for the money," but Hunter and the president's younger brother, James, seem to enjoy cashing in on their last name.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki says Hunter Biden has the right to make a living in his new profession and defended the secret art auction because it "provides a level of protection and transparency." Nevertheless, "Selling art to anonymous buyers is 'genius-level corruption,'" said Peter Schweitzer, the author of a book about lucrative business deals by political families.
For my part, I'm looking forward to the findings of those federal and state investigations about how "Blue Collar Joe" and the Biden family became so rich during his 50 years in Washington.
Guy W. Farmer is the Appeal's senior political columnist.
