Government Watchdog Calls Clinton Foundation A "Slush Fund"

[amborin]

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group once run by leading progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout. …

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. …

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

If you looked at the U.S. economy under a microscope, what you’d see is a gigantic cancerous blob of cronyism surrounded by tech startups and huge prisons. If you zeroed in on the cancerous tumor, at the nucleus you’d see a network of crony institutions like the Federal Reserve, intelligence agencies, TBTF Wall Street banks and defense contractors. Pretty close to that, you’d probably find the Clinton Foundation. A veritable clearinghouse for cronyism masquerading as a charity.

Unsurprisingly, I’m not the only one who has come to such a conclusion. In a New York Post article from Sunday that is generating a lot of buzz, Bill Allison, a senior fellow at nonpartisan, nonprofit government watchdog group the Sunlight Foundation, is quoted saying:

It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.

In case you’re wondering what might prompt Mr. Allison to make such a claim, it’s not just the recent pay-to-play scandals that have emerged.

snip

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-28/government-watchdog-calls-clinton-foundation-slush-fund

[CoffeeCat]

1. That's an insult to slush funds (nt)

[Politicalboi]

2. Where's Nate Silver

Ignoring law breaking because it's her turn. Which state will Hillary land her ass in jail in?

[Kentonio]

12. The super rich don't go to jail unless they piss off the other super rich.

[amborin]

6. yes, using government positions to enrich friends & family; like the worst of the crony capitalisms

[jillan]

4. But Rachel said it's for down ticket races. Shame on you for questioning Rachel.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

5. down ticket races

more 3rd way dinos

[CorporatistNation]

19. Unless I AM MISTAKEN, I Believe That I Heard Chelsea Was On The Payroll For $3 Million Plus Annually

Must be Niceeee...

[HillareeeHillaraah]

25. Actually, you are mistaken

From August 2015, Vanity Fair article on Chelsea Clinton:

Neither she nor her father receives a salary from the foundation.

It's reported that her wedding cost upwards of $3mil perhaps that's where you got the number.

I know, $3 mil for a wedding is jaw dropping but personally, I like it when rich people spend boatloads of cash for goods and services right here in America...it's good for our economic engine.

[jfern]

24. It went mostly went to a down ticket candidate named Hillary Clinton

[RiverLover]

7. I don't think Alice Walton would have a problem with this.

And that's what really matters, right Hillary?

Hillary Clinton Received a Massive Donation From Walmart Heiress

Hillary Clinton’s campaign finance records show the wealthy Walmart heiress, Alice Walton, donated $353,400 to Clinton’s “Victory Fund.” The six-figure donation contrasts Clinton’s campaign messaging as a workers’ ally.


Walmart stands out for its oppressive labor practices and corporate greed behavior. Before that Alice Walton contributed $25,000 to the Ready for Hillary political action committee.

The former first lady and secretary of state has been endorsed by multiple labor unions including Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the National Education Association (NEA).

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/alice-walton-donated-353400-clintons-victory-fund

[workinclasszero]

8. Hillary rasies money for other democrats to help defeat fascist republicans

And Bernie raises money to finance around-the-world junkets to ambush the Pope.

[NWCorona]

9. Salty tears are flowing

[workinclasszero]

10. I cant wait till the New York primary!

[NWCorona]

11. Me neither!

[99Forever]

13. Crooks gotta be crooks.

[BernieforPres2016]

14. I prefer the term criminal enterprise to slush fund to describe the Clinton Foundation nt

[artislife]

15. Ge...that's surprising....

[amborin]

16. can anyone adduce evidence to contradict this?

[restorefreedom]

18. its awfully quiet out here.....

https://m.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

20. Not that this will change anyone's mind here in this thread but...

[restorefreedom]

26. that is nice to know

but there are some concerns as to where that money came from....that is where i believe the potential problems are

[HillareeeHillaraah]

27. I appreciate the calm tone of your counterpoint.

It's in short supply here.

I was addressing whether the Clinton Foundation was a slush fund and I believe the independant group, Charity Watch along with third party audits have said good things about the Foundation

There's a great dealof biased reporting aimed at taking down the Clintons. And perhaps we disagree. I aimed here to refute the New York Post's inflammatory rhetoric.

Here's a link to Charity Watch's most recent findings. There's a lot of data to dig through ~

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

[restorefreedom]

28. yw....yeah things are getting crazy for sure around here

and i have lost it at times, but i just can't stay so pissed off...its too exhausting, and i am getting too old

thanks for the link..i like charitywatch. i honestly don't know if there is anything to the concerns....i think the foreign contributions are most troubling to me but i haven't delved deeply into it.

there are so many moving parts. if i was a paid political consultant i would be thinking about a career change about now....

[HillareeeHillaraah]

29. Yeah, disagreement has gotten real volital around here

I got a spasm in my neck that only calms down when I turn off my laptop...

Peace

[restorefreedom]

30. mine comes in the form of screeching headaches. namaste. nt

[HillareeeHillaraah]

22. The Clinton Foundation's Respond to the New York Post article

The clip you've posted here is from the New York Post, a Rupert Murdoch publication, which ran last April.

This is the Clinton Foundation's response

New York Post Letter to the Editor

SHARE
220

75

0
Editor's note: An abbreviated version of this letter appeared in the New York Post's print edition on April 29, 2015.

The New York Post’s incorrect report on the Clinton Foundation’s finances demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding or willful misrepresentation of the basic workings of large non-profit organizations. We will not stand by and let the facts be twisted for a moment longer.

The Post claims that the Foundation spent only $9 million to help others in 2013. This is patently false. The $9 million figure, reported in our tax forms, called 990s, represents only the direct grants we made to outside entities. The Foundation is not primarily a grant making organization—we support our own projects with our own staff on the ground. Other large global non-profits that deliver their own projects also show very small dollar amounts for grant making because it is not how they operate. All told, we spent more than $68 million in 2013 on work that is improving millions of lives around the world.

The Post claims that the Foundation had a surplus of $64 million in 2013. This figure is highly misleading because the Foundation took in nearly $59 million to help build its endowment—an endeavor the Foundation began for the first time two years ago—money that must be saved and invested to ensure our future sustainability and not allocated to immediate programmatic work.

The Post claims that the Foundation “spends far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.” Once again, this is based on an egregious misreading of the Foundation’s financial documents. The Foundation, together with its affiliated but independent entity the Clinton Health Access Initiative, actually allocates more than 88 percent of its expenditures towards our programmatic work.

The Post claims that the bulk of the Foundation’s 2013 expenditures went to administration, travel, and salaries. Once again, this is demonstrably false. Only 9.9 percent of the Foundation’s expenditures went to management and general expenses. The Foundation’s salaries are completely in line with other leading large non-profits, and we periodically review at least three nationally recognized not-for-profit compensation surveys to weigh all staff compensation including top management. In addition, we engage an independent compensation consultant to obtain an independent review to ensure consistency and compliance.

The Post includes an allegation from Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunshine Organization, that “it seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.” The fact is that no money raised for the Clinton Foundation goes to the Clintons personally, ever. The Clintons draw no salary from the Foundation and derive no financial benefit from the Foundation.

The Post also incorrectly alleges that the Clinton Foundation “failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.”

In regards to our 990s, the Foundation has said that after a voluntary external review is completed we will likely refile forms for some years. While the Post and others want to suggest that this indicates a failure to accurately report our total revenue, that is clearly not the case. Our total revenue was accurately reported on each year's form—our error was that government grants were mistakenly combined with other donations. Those same grants have always been properly listed on our audited financial statements, and broken out on our contributor list for anyone to see on our website.

The Post makes much of the fact that Charity Navigator recently declined to rate the Foundation, but Charity Navigator itself says this “simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.” As most people working in the non-profit sector know, Charity Navigator is currently transitioning to a new model of rating charities which they readily admit and believe is necessary to keep up with the new ways in which non-profits operate. In fact, when they wrote us in 2014 to inform us of their decision to withhold a rating, they said, “We commend the Clinton Foundation's choice to voluntarily comply with every one of our accountability and transparency standards as well as your efforts to be at the forefront of impact assessment of philanthropic work.”

It’s clear that the Post was more interested in feeding their own manufactured storyline about the Clintons than reporting the facts about one of the leanest, most transparent, and most effective non-profits in the world. Otherwise, they would have done a better job doing their homework—or at least first learned how to read a 990 tax form before going to print. Sadly, we don’t expect to hear a fair accounting of the Clinton Foundation’s work from them anytime soon.



- See more at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2015/04/29/new-york-post-letter-editor#sthash.XvWGF3OG.dpuf

[nc4bo]

17. Again, media fails to inform the voter. Keeping many from becoming high information voters.

I suspect it's all by design.

[farleftlib]

21. I would tend to agree

The only news I rely on as truth is what I can glean from Project Censored.

If the M$M bans it, it has to be good and get to the crux of how bad it has gotten.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

23. Here's another link to the independent Charity Watch's current review

Of the Clinton Foundation and its subsidiaries

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

[amborin]

31. kicking