Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014

a reply to: Xcathdra

You apparently didn't read the article I posted. The line pointed out is the amount given to other charities. There is a line missing from that graphic which shows the remainder spent on charitable endeavors.

It doesn't even seem like you read the reply, showing why that 6% is not what you think it is.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
For every dollar I spend, the state of Indiana gets 7 cents.
For every dollar the Clinton foundation gets, it donates less than 6 cents.
Sounds like somebody is making a hell of a profit at this non profit.

Yeah, let's put that bunch in charge of the country. I bet they can come up with many more ways to filter money into their pockets. But keep saying trumps all about the money.

It gives 6 cents to other charities or foundations and spends 83 cents on charitable operations it already has in place.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The Clinton Climate charity is defined as a pass through by a former top board member.

Well, whomever this former board member was, they are wrong regarding the tax exempt status. Libraries, for example, are automatically considered "Operational Foundations." That's in the IRS info I linked above.

The Clinton Foundation DID start for the library, and things were added in as their interests expanded, and some things, like CHAI and CGI were spun off into their own tax exempt entities eventually. The Daily Caller article claims they didn't adjust their "charitable purpose" line on their IRS form when they should have, from what I can tell. The Foundation has tax lawyers and accountants to deal with the IRS details - if there were ever any problems, those same people would handle them with the IRS. We haven't heard of any legal problems with the IRS themselves, have we? (I could have missed it.)

Anyway, it is a very complicated, global organization, which makes it vulnerable to all kinds of misunderstandings and attacks. Campaigns are rough - it's no surprise this vulnerability is being exploited.

Again, there may be real problems with it on the level of conflict of interest, but from what I've seen the financial part isn't the issue.

They also actually help millions of people around the world (11.5+ million received low cost AIDS medications due to their bulk buying efforts and work with organizations and countries regarding distribution, for example.) It's the Clinton's version of Carter's Habitat for Humanity.




- AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

Correct me if I am wrong but the whole Clinton Foundation fiasco began when it was discovered Hillary was using a private server.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And they filled out forms every year for the IRS, and they have their annual reports and forms on the web at their site...so...???

I'm not sure what you are getting at. The financial information was public. Some of the donors (i.e. the conflict of interest I mentioned) was not.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Possibly? Pretty early on Carly Fiorina was using the misleading 6% figure.

It could have been near that time someone started to look at the server.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: slider1982

When he becomes president he will be a politician, at the moment he has zero power to change any laws..

So then, Hillary is not a politician either.

You're right, she's actually a criminal posing as a politician...

a reply to: Phage

When he announced his candidacy for president in June, he released a financial statement that noted he has given away more than $102 million worth of land over the past five years to organizations that promote public open space.

www.scribd.com...
heres his 2013 990

Wow 4 pages of one person trolling the thread making sure nobody was talking about how only less than 6% of the free money given to the Clinton Foundation was ever given out as charity. That is like going to a food shelter and seeing they only gave out 6 out of every 100 items of free food collected while the people starved in the meal lines for years.

a reply to: reldra

Expenses....this is money paid out. Do not confuse it with 'things' in place.

5 million in grants
34 million in salaries and benefits

That is deplorable. That is 34 million that could go a long way. If those amounts were reversed I would still be irate but at least the majority would go to charity.

Then remember, they give it to charity and then that charity takes its cut for 'administration'. Like Sean Penn...

he Clinton Foundation’s largest single charitable grant to an organization not founded by the Clinton Foundation or managed by one of its board members was a $700,000 check to the J/P Haitian Relief Organization, a non-profit founded by actor Sean Penn. That organization reportedly spent more than $126,000 on first-class flights for the actor.

Charity Navigator—a leading charity watchdog—has given the Clinton Foundation a perfect 4/4 star rating.

According to its 2014 consolidated tax report, the Clinton Foundation spends about 12 percent of its budget on running the foundation. Another charity watchdog, Charity Watch, previously gave the Clinton Foundation an "A'' rating on a scale of A-F.

Charity Watch has no connection to the Clinton Foundation, said its president, Daniel Borochoff. "We don't want money from charities we rate, because we believe in being an independent charity watchdog," he said.

Looks like the Clinton Foundation is one of the most efficient and transparent charity groups in the world. Almost 90% of its funds go directly to charitable works.

a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish

Charity Navigator is a leading and respected organization that evaluates and rates charities so donors can make informed decisions about contributions. It was itself a member of the Clinton Global Initiative between 2012 and 2014. The Clinton group said Charity Navigator committed to spend an estimated $2 million over four years through 2016 to review more charities and provide more detailed information about them in its reviews.

Charity Navigator also participated in a Clinton Global Initiative program in 2011 with other groups to identify worthy charities for U.S. veterans, journalism integrity and Islamic outreach, but Charity Navigator did not contribute money as part of that effort.

Charity Navigator's president, Michael Thatcher, told The Associated Press that the Clinton campaign did not influence the rating.

Got an unbiased source?



Factcheck.org

Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”

That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.

and is close to impossible to track funding / expenditures.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Can you read a financial statement?

originally posted by: XcathdraGot an unbiased source?

Yes: Charity Navigator and Charity Watch. Both unbiased. Both referred to in my previous post.

Clinton Foundation on Charity Navigator’s ‘watch list’ (2015)

Objections from the Clinton Foundation have failed to assuage concerns of a charity watchdog group that says potential donors should think twice before giving money to the foundation, which has come under scrutiny for donations from foreign governments and tax reporting issues.

A spokeswoman for Charity Navigator confirmed Tuesday that the Clinton Foundation remains on the group’s “watch list” after being placed on it earlier in the year.

In the section designating the foundation as a member of its “watch list,” CN’s website cited news reports of donations from foreign governments and the refiling of annual tax returns after reporting errors.

“Basically, it is a way of calling attention to an issue of concern that donors should consider before supporting a charity,” Sandra Miniutti, vice president of marketing, said in an email.

Other charities on the site’s watch list include the American Red Cross and the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network.

The ratings site had also said earlier it had evaluated the foundation through its official rating system in the past, but it has determined the charity’s “atypical business model” can’t be captured in the rating system’s methodology, though it still remains on the watch list.

“Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity,” CN said on its website. “We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.”

a reply to: Xcathdra

And, guess what? It's now 2016. What's your point?

This rating was published 09/01/2016 using data provided by the charity on a consolidated pro forma 990 which was verified against 990s received from the IRS.

www.charitynavigator.org...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Clinton Foundation on Charity Navigator’s ‘watch list’ (2015)

Charity Navigator's statement clearly shows that they had no concerns about the Clinton Foundation. This year they gave the Clinton Foundation a perfect 4/4 rating.

What's your point?

DEBUNKED: Cooper's Fake Clinton Foundation Fact Check (charity watch)

In its latest misleading “fact check” on Tuesday, left-wing CNN’s cleansed the Clinton Foundation of scandals - at least related to its philanthropic efficiency or lack thereof.

Following the airing of a pre-recorded interview with Donald Trump Jr., Anderson Cooper referenced a positive review of the Clinton Foundation (referred to as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation) from Charity Watch. Cooper was pushing against criticisms of the Clinton Foundation, in which Trump's eldest son framed the organization as a vehicle through which the Clintons monetized political influence.

Following the segment, Cooper did his misleading fact check.

“Should just point out for the record," said Cooper, "Charity Watch gave the Clinton Foundaiton an A, said that about 80% of money raised was actually spent on things as opposed to about 75%, which is often for many charities."

[AP/John Minchillo]
By:
Robert Kraychik
August 31, 2016
44
99
20 Comments
4690

In its latest misleading “fact check” on Tuesday, left-wing CNN’s cleansed the Clinton Foundation of scandals - at least related to its philanthropic efficiency or lack thereof.

Following the airing of a pre-recorded interview with Donald Trump Jr., Anderson Cooper referenced a positive review of the Clinton Foundation (referred to as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation) from Charity Watch. Cooper was pushing against criticisms of the Clinton Foundation, in which Trump's eldest son framed the organization as a vehicle through which the Clintons monetized political influence.

Following the segment, Cooper did his misleading fact check.

“Should just point out for the record," said Cooper, "Charity Watch gave the Clinton Foundaiton an A, said that about 80% of money raised was actually spent on things as opposed to about 75%, which is often for many charities."

Charity Watch gives the Clinton Foundation an A-rating, claiming that only 12% of its funds go to overhead costs. Also claimed is that the Clinton Foundation only spends $2 to for every $100 it raises. Unmentioned is the fact that the Clinton Foundation’s average donation eclipses that of the average charity, with most of its donations coming from corporations, billionaires, and foreign governments. Charity Watch also neglected to include speaking fees charged by either Bill or Hillary Clinton to their foundation donors as operational costs, overlooking the fusion of the Clinton Foundation with the Clintons' income via paid speeches.

Cooper did not acknowledge reviews of the Clinton Foundation from other charity review organizations.

click link for article.

a reply to: Xcathdra

click link for article.

I did.
It says this:

Charity Navigator gives the Clinton Foundation no rating, citing its “atypical business model.” The charity review explains its decision not to rate the ostensibly charitable foundation:

Your source is obsolete. Charity Navigator rates the Clinton Foundation.

Your source says

Charity Navigator is much larger and older than Charity Watch.

Charity Navigator rates the Foundation 94.74.
www.charitynavigator.org...

What is your point?

Shaky Foundation
The Red Cross was ranked as an "A-" to the Clinton Foundation's "A" by CharityWatch, but the larger Charity Navigator doesn't rate the latter organization.

Reinstated after pressure was applied for them to do so.