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.

[BenLurkin]

But....but...the “expert” panelist on the Stephanouplis show said that they “do good work”

[realcleanguy]

So, really, it’s a money laundering scheme

[Unam Sanctam]

What a pair of lowlife grifters! It’s disgusting what Democrat politicians get away with in this country.

[webheart]

People just don’t understand. If a Clinton visits Haiti, their very presence helps make everything better. The spending on travel does directly save lives, because it puts the Clintons where they are needed the most. Who wouldn’t say that Jesus’ travels weren’t beneficial to the people? They would also have to say the Clintons are just as beneficial.

[dila813]

Good article and good author!

Thanks

[Busko]

That is how the Klintons got rich!

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Clinton donors don’t care. Their contributions were never meant to save lives, they were meant to gain influence and access. And the Clinton’s delivered.

[FlipWilson]

PROVE IT without those deleted e-mails!! Don’t mean diddly squat!! What difference does it make at this point that abuses took place, they are correcting them. Anyway, shouldn’t we move on to speaking about seedy hedge fund managers like Mrs. Clinton’s son in law (ignore that) or the obscene amount of money that those CEO’s make. It’s time to move on so that Mrs. Clinton can get back to doing the work of the American People!!

[Servant of the Cross]

So, really, it’s a money laundering scheme

Exactly! Just imagine a real charity telling prospective donors that a full $0.10 of every dollar they contribute will go to the cause!

Every one of these expenses find their way into things that benefit Clinton, Inc. personally:

Salaries = 33%
Travel = 10%
Other Expenses = 34%?! (someone needs to investigate these!)

[rdcbn]

Actually, It’s more like about 6 percent of donations.

[JPG]

Other Expenses (34%)

That's a whole lot of 'other'. I wonder what goodies are hidden beneath the cover of 'other'?

[afraidfortherepublic]

Office supplies more than rent? (in Manhatten)

Are they communicating in cuneiform on solid gold tablets?

[joshua c]

Wealthy individuals set up foundations to manage their charitable giving.

The Clintons set up a foundation to get rich.

[Paine in the Neck]

[TexasCajun]

"How'd we manage to leave 10% on the table? ...we gotta look into that!"

[txrefugee]

They are only the latest and most blatant edition of Arkansas con artists. Go back and read the history of the Smithsonian Institution. It almost didn’t get built because some Arkansas crooks stole the first funds from Smithton’s bequest that had been invested in Arkansas state bonds. John Quincy Adams convinced Congress to repay the money with interest so the Smithsonian could be built. That’s another tradition: the taxpayers of the USA are always left holding the bag.

[SkyDancer]

It would be nice to see what charities they contributed to. How many are conservative and how many are liberal. I’m just trying to think of a liberal charity that feeds the hungry, clothes those that need it and house the homeless.

[GOPJ]

The foundation's a Clinton retirement/vacation/slush fund ... Period.

Excuses the Clintons and their shills will offer... excuses the press is vile enough to buy:

1.That the accusations are “old news.”

2.That the accusers are funded by right-wing conspiracists.

3.That everyone does what the Clintons did.

4.That the media pick on the Clintons.

5.That there is no hard evidence (because they have destroyed documents) that would ever lead to a criminal case. And:

6.That they are moving on, to work on behalf of the folks.

- Victor Davis Hanson

[GOPJ]

Excuses Clintons and their shills will push... excuses the press is vile enough to buy:

1.That the accusations are “old news.”

2.That the accusers are funded by right-wing conspiracists.

3.That everyone does what the Clintons did.

4.That the media pick on the Clintons.

5.That there is no hard evidence (because they have destroyed documents) that would ever lead to a criminal case. And:

6.That they are moving on, to work on behalf of the folks.

- Victor Davis Hanson