"George Stephanopoulos Gave to the Clinton Foundation. So What?"

Yeah, that's what I've been thinking, and I tend to not agree with Jonathan Chait. He says:

Rand Paul... accuses Stephanopoulos of harboring a �conflict of interest.� But donating money to a charitable foundation is not an interest. His money is gone regardless of what happens to Clinton�s presidential campaign.... In the absence of a material conflict, is there some symbolic conflict? It is hard to imagine what.... Stephanopoulos�s defense � that he just wanted to donate to the Foundation�s work on AIDS prevention and deforestation � seems 100 percent persuasive....

The Washington Post�s Erik Wemple does make an argument, but not much of one. �The problem with Stephanopoulos�s donations to the Clinton Foundation is that it gives him a stake � even if it�s a small one � in the operations and success of the charity,� he writes, �Like any donor, Stephanopoulos wants his money put to good use and, all else being equal, wants the foundation to prosper as it invests his money in good works.� But how does this bias Stephanopoulos�s campaign coverage?...

I've always assumed Stephanopoulos is biased toward the Clintons. Why should I care about his charitable contributions? Failed disclosure? Bleh. The Foundation is in all sorts of trouble? George isn't linked to that. The Republicans shouldn't accept him as a debate moderator. That was already true. This new thing? I don't see what it adds to the already-existing disqualification.