The Newark Star-Ledger’s editorial board writes that the Clinton Foundation scandal is another example of the “slipperiness” that has surrounded Hillary Clinton for decades.

“But it is slipperiness, the same kind we saw years ago when Clinton made $100,000 on cattle futures as a novice investor; and more recently, admitted to using a private email server to conduct all her public business as Secretary of State. Once again, Clinton has put herself in a compromising position and is making a mess of her campaign. Why must the Clintons alienate even their biggest supporters with this indifference to basic transparency laws?”

North Carolina’s The News & Observer points out that “even without a smoking gun,” the Clinton Foundation’s “arrangement always has had an odd aspect.”

“There is clearly an opportunity for conflict when a high official is also linked to a foundation. Those seeking official favors may well see a large gift to the foundation as a way to curry it. The Clintons agreed to begin posting lists of foundation contributors before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. And the foundation accepted some restrictions on support from foreign governments while she was in office, but it did not eliminate such gifts. Indeed, one-third of donations over $1 million to the $2 billion foundation have come from either foreign governments or foreign-based groups, according to The Washington Post. Whether this controversy deepens will depend on whether it can be shown that donors received special treatment. But even without a smoking gun, the arrangement always has had an odd aspect.”

The Providence Journal says that the Clintons’ “massive conflict of interest” is “deeply troubling—and worth exploring.”

“But the story points to an issue that will be of the utmost importance in the presidential campaign: The massive conflict of interest that Hillary Clinton had when she served as secretary of state. As her husband attempted to raise money from foreign entities for himself and his foundation, after all, Ms. Clinton had a very prominent role in American foreign policy. That’s deeply troubling – and worth exploring, given the checks put in place to prevent foreign interests from influencing U.S. government. Questions have also arisen about the charity’s inaccurate filings with the Internal Revenue Service and how it has used the money it has accumulated.”

The New York Post argues that “Team Clinton’s counter-attack is failing even on the Left,” liberal columnists and potential donors are troubled by the Clinton Foundation revelations.

“Which is why Team Clinton’s counter-attack is failing even on the left. Ask Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Sunlight Foundation, which monitors government transparency. He told The Post: ‘It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.’ Liberal columnist Jonathan Chait wrote that even in a best-case scenario, the Clintons have been ‘disorganized and greedy.’ And Jim Cooper, a veteran New York Democratic fund-raiser and bundler who was enlisted as a ‘HillStarter’ by the Clinton campaign, says he’s holding back for now from tapping his network.”

The San Francisco Chronicle wants Clinton to “offer a detailed look of the foundation, its practices and fundraising before her campaign takes another step.”

“She should offer a detailed look of the foundation, its practices and fundraising before her campaign takes another step.”

“This is the second time in two months that Clinton has faced serious questions about her disregard for transparency,” and the Tampa Bay Times asks “what will it be next month, and what will be the excuse?”

“This is the second time in two months that Clinton has faced serious questions about her disregard for transparency and failure to follow agreed-upon protocols. Last month it was the revelation that she used a secret private email account as secretary of state to conduct government business, and she acknowledged deleting thousands of emails she considered personal. Now it is the failure to disclose donations to the Clinton Foundation that she promised to voluntarily report when she became secretary of state. What will it be next month, and what will be the excuse?”

Barack Obama’s hometown Chicago Tribune notes that “with each disclosure that raises the specter of the Clintons primarily taking care of the Clintons,” “millions of Americans wonder, what is it about these people?”

“As is, the Clinton name dazzles millions of Americans. But with each disclosure that raises the specter of the Clintons primarily taking care of the Clintons, other millions of Americans wonder, What is it about these people? The pressure of a campaign, especially if other serious Democrats enter the primary cycle, should compel Hillary Clinton to be more forthright — to earn the trust of the American people that a president must command. At this early stage she’s instead projecting entitlement.”

The Orange County Register: Clinton “not only should have scrupulously avoided conflicts of interest, but even the appearance of such conflicts.”

“But that’s beside the point. What troubles us is that it apparently didn’t occur to Mrs. Clinton that, as secretary of state, she not only should have scrupulously avoided conflicts of interest, but even the appearance of such conflicts. A public official with an ethical compass would have known that.”

The New Hampshire Union Leader blasts the Clintons for having “not changed since the 1990’s” and says “they are still the same dishonest, calculating frauds they have always been.”

“The Clintons have not changed since the 1990s. They are still the same dishonest, calculating frauds they always have been. Anyone who does not see that is blinded by partisanship. Or cash.”