The (Renamed) 'Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation'

[bigtree]

from the NYT:


____ In the coming weeks, the (Clinton) foundation, long (Bill) Clinton’s domain since its formation in 2001, will become the nerve center of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s increasingly busy public life.

This fall, Mrs. Clinton and her staff will move into offices at the foundation’s new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, occupying two floors of the Time-Life Building. Amid speculation about her 2016 plans, Mrs. Clinton is adding major new initiatives on women, children and jobs to what has been renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Worried that the foundation’s operating revenues depend too heavily on Mr. Clinton’s nonstop fund-raising, the three Clintons are embarking on a drive to raise an endowment of as much as $250 million, with events already scheduled in the Hamptons and London. And after years of relying on Bruce R. Lindsey, the former White House counsel whose friendship with Mr. Clinton stretches back decades, to run the organization while living part-time in Arkansas, the family has hired a New York-based chief executive with a background in management consulting . . .

Mrs. Clinton’s staff at the foundation’s headquarters includes Maura Pally, a veteran aide who advised her 2008 presidential campaign and worked at the State Department, and Madhuri Kommareddi, a former policy aide to President Obama . . . Dennis Cheng, Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of protocol at the State Department and a finance director of her presidential campaign, will oversee the endowment drive . . .

And Mrs. Clinton’s personal staff of roughly seven people — including Huma Abedin, wife of the New York mayoral candidate Anthony D. Weiner — will soon relocate from a cramped Washington office to the foundation’s headquarters. They will work on organizing Mrs. Clinton’s packed schedule of paid speeches to trade groups and awards ceremonies and assist in the research and writing of Mrs. Clinton’s memoir about her time at the State Department, to be published by Simon & Schuster next summer . . .


(a must read for Clinton-watchers) read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=todayspaper



related:

The Overlapping Clinton World - Graphic
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/14/us/politics/The-Overlapping-Clinton-World.html?ref=politics

[warrant46]

1. with events already scheduled in the Hamptons and London.

Ah ---the "Hamptons" lots of bucks to be shaken from pockets there

[bigtree]

3. who's in London?

Madonna?

[warrant46]

5. Some One who's loaded with $$$$

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. I thought they were in Harlem. n/t

[msanthrope]

8. They are--they hold events in many places, though. nt

[bigtree]

4. this is a good article

. . . you're likely going to want this info at some point, if, as most assume, Hillary's political career isn't over.

[warrant46]

6. Looks like the Next Step is only beginning

[bigtree]

7. I know I'm not alone in thinking that this move closer to Bill's foundation

. . . has the potential to open Hillary up to any concerns or charges of impropriety or conflict of interest that the foundation has experienced over the years.

It's not a move that I would think is completely in line with those ambitions for the presidency.

[brooklynite]

9. Name one...

I can't think of any criticism that's come up.

[bigtree]

10. conflicts of interest?

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2013, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)

You really believe that all of the corporate and other donors don't represent a mine field for the candidate? I do.

I don't have that axe to grind with the Clintons over the questions that have been raised of the foundation over the years about millions of dollars deficits and the roster of corporate contributors to their causes. I'm open to the Clintons explanations for their conduct and I'd expect they've tried as well as they could to avoid any conflicts or impropriety.

Sadly, I don't think that's going to be the view of opponents who challenge Mrs. Clinton in an election. I think it's going to be a complicated defense of the foundation for her, but, I do hope for the best. It's been a worthwhile effort, I think, which has done a heck of a lot of good around the globe.

(I hope that's a good enough explanation. I'm really not going to assume the role of a critic of the Clinton Foundation - just recognizing that it's a complicated affair which involves millions and millions of dollars from a variety of sources. That's not likely to go unnoticed or unchallenged by opponents.)

She had some distance from it all in the last contest, and, I'm thinking that it could be more complicated for a candidacy this time around with her personal identification and involvement with it all.

[brooklynite]

14. Name one...

any concerns or charges of impropriety or conflict of interest that the foundation has experienced over the years

Still waiting to hear a criticism of the Foundation. And assuming it existed, how would changing the name make any difference in the criticism she'll face from her record of Government service?

[bigtree]

16. you can't be serious and have read the article

. . . and challenging me to make charges against the Clintons is just foolishness. I don't know what you hope to gain by that. I've told you that I don't have an axe to grind over this . . . besides, all this article and I can do would be to point to the potential land mines for a candidate ingratiating herself into the former president's organization which has attracted millions and millions of big donor dollars.

Read the article. It outlines a few potential conflicts of interest. I'm not going to outline them for you. Read the article and make your own judgment.

[snooper2]

11. Why didn't you post the real title? "Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions"

snip---

"Mr. Clinton ended his advisory role with Teneo in March 2012, after an article appeared in The New York Post suggesting that Mrs. Clinton was angry over the MF Global controversy. A spokesman for Mr. Clinton denied the report. But in a statement released afterward, Mr. Clinton announced that he would no longer be paid by Teneo.

He also praised Mr. Band effusively, crediting him with keeping the foundation afloat and expressing hopes that Mr. Band would continue to advise the Global Initiative.

“I couldn’t have accomplished half of what I have in my post-presidency without Doug Band,” Mr. Clinton said in the statement.

Even that news release was a source of controversy within the foundation, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Band helped edit the statement, which other people around the Clintons felt gave him too much credit for the foundation’s accomplishments. (The quotation now appears as part of Mr. Band’s biography on the Teneo Web site.)

Mr. Band left his paid position with the foundation in late 2010, but has remained involved with C.G.I., as have a number of Teneo clients, like Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and UBS Americas. Standard Chartered, a British financial services company that paid a $340 million fine to New York regulators last year to settle charges that it had laundered money from Iran, is a Teneo client and a sponsor of the 2012 global initiative."

[bigtree]

12. it's a judgment title that I'm not convinced of

. . . I'm not sure if I care about whoever is at unease with the foundation.

Hell, I'm 'uneasy' with it (some of that below). Do you care?

[snooper2]

13. I think if she REALLY wants to run for office, she should stay away from the foundation

Somebody is going to do a fuck-up somewhere and the books won't be right-

Interesting that they (Clinton Campaign vs Foundation) were competing for the same big donor money during the recession/primary as they have the same big name friends.

[bigtree]

15. you're thinking the same thing I'm thinking. Foundation money usually reeks of influence-peddling

"Interesting that they (Clinton Campaign vs Foundation) were competing for the same big donor money during the recession/primary as they have the same big name friends."

All of that 'distance' she worked to project from her husband's money during that campaign evaporates and leaves her wide open. It was a dicey argument during the primary that insisted their finances were separate and it's just asking for trouble (for her, as a candidate) to formalize that connection to Bill's enterprises and dealings outside of office.