In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants

The Federalist ^ | 04/27/2015 | Sean Davis

[SeekAndFind]

After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to [the foundation’s] life-saving work.”

More than 88% of our expenditures go directly to our life-changing work: http://t.co/5BrnpBtIp6 pic.twitter.com/GoKfRE9rKq

Clinton Foundation (@ClintonFdn) April 25, 2015

There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.

In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-saving” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-saving.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly save lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Do ink cartridges and and staplers directly save lives?

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to non-life-saving overhead expenses.

How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go to life-saving work is demonstrably false. Conferences do not directly save lives.

[Fresh Wind]

Office supplies. Hmmm.

Does that include cigars?

[RetSignman]

Looks like they consulted with the CEO of Wounded Warriors Project for advise.

[eyeamok]

10% isn’t that bad, hell Bon Jovi only spent 3% on his charity

[molson209]

What does Bill do with the money he gets from tax payers every year to pay for Office and Staff ?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: 10% isn’t that bad, hell Bon Jovi only spent 3% on his charity

Ahhh, but is Bon Jovi a charity with donations for charity?

[TruthWillWin]

And as a charitable organization all that income is tax free. What a scam.

[eyeamok]

YES it was, he expensed 97% of the 15 Million or so that he received.

[Zathras]

How should I put this without getting banned.
All those Cigars need a “humidor” and that can be expensive.

[KarlInOhio]

Other Expenses = 34%?! (someone needs to investigate these!)

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that is for consulting fees for the Clintons themselves to keep it hidden from the salary line.

[Sequoyah101]

Surprise, surprise, surprise, surprise!!!!

Who didn’t see that one coming?

Right up there with Red Cross and many others. Huge overhead. Itty bitty distributions to charity.

A money laundering enterprise if there ever was one.

[Servant of the Cross]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that is for consulting fees for the Clintons themselves to keep it hidden from the salary line.

You're exactly right. And it includes an amazing number of FOC*'s, who seem to be fighting over the $$ too ...

* friends of Bill, Hillary and Chelsea ...

[NormsRevenge]

Other Expenses?

like ice..

and head bandages.

[Steve_Seattle]

The largest category (34%) is “other expenses.” I wonder what’s in that category, since it excludes salaries, benefits, travel, IT, supplies, and rent?

[Steve_Seattle]

"I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that [other expenses]is for consulting fees for the Clintons themselves to keep it hidden from the salary line."

The smart money is on that theory.

[Steve_Seattle]

The only bad thing about all this Clinton bad news is that if Hillary’s campaign gets shot down too soon, some other Democrat will have time to get an organization started up as an alternative to Hillary.

[surrey]

Bon Jovi must have taken lessons from his good buddy Bill.

[Cementjungle]

if Hillary’s campaign gets shot down too soon

It won't get shot down. This is just the process of clearing out the many, many scandals and crimes so next year they will all be "old news". Not that it matters, because the GOP candidate won't be allowed to ask about any of this stuff anyway.

[lowbridge]

Bump

[HotHunt]

To answer the question of whether the Clintons are disingenuous, duplicitous crooks or not, I always go back to BJ's answer in his Monica deposition testimony, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement." What the f*ck did he say?

Every explanation this two give for their illegal and shady behavior is always couched in legalese meant to bamboozle, dazzle and obfuscate the questioner.

Notice that even in response the the current scandals with the foundation donations, that there never is a flat out denial? Their answer is, "There is not evidence of that." Not a flat out statement that it didn't happen, but that there is no evidence of it, so prove it. A non-denial, denial.

Reminds me of of Gore's, "There is no controlling legal authority."