Skip to comments.
In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants
The Federalist ^
| 04/27/2015
| Sean Davis
Posted on 04/27/2015 7:03:02 AM PDT by 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.”
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: charity; charitynavigator; clintioncharity; clintoncharityfraud; clintoncrimefamily; clintonfoundation; hillary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: SeekAndFind
Office supplies. Hmmm.
Does that include cigars?
21
posted on
04/27/2015 7:45:20 AM PDT
by
Fresh Wind
(Falcon 105)
To: SeekAndFind
Looks like they consulted with the CEO of Wounded Warriors Project for advise.
22
posted on
04/27/2015 7:46:58 AM PDT
by
RetSignman
(Obama is the walking, talking middle finger in the face of America)
To: SeekAndFind
10% isn’t that bad, hell Bon Jovi only spent 3% on his charity
23
posted on
04/27/2015 7:51:34 AM PDT
by
eyeamok
To: SeekAndFind
What does Bill do with the money he gets from tax payers every year to pay for Office and Staff ?
24
posted on
04/27/2015 7:52:14 AM PDT
by
molson209
(Blank)
To: eyeamok
RE: 10% isnt that bad, hell Bon Jovi only spent 3% on his charity
Ahhh, but is Bon Jovi a charity with donations for charity?
To: Unam Sanctam
And as a charitable organization all that income is tax free. What a scam.
26
posted on
04/27/2015 7:57:14 AM PDT
by
TruthWillWin
(The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.)
To: SeekAndFind
YES it was, he expensed 97% of the 15 Million or so that he received.
27
posted on
04/27/2015 8:04:27 AM PDT
by
eyeamok
To: Fresh Wind
How should I put this without getting banned.
All those Cigars need a “humidor” and that can be expensive.
28
posted on
04/27/2015 8:05:47 AM PDT
by
Zathras
To: Servant of the Cross
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.
29
posted on
04/27/2015 8:12:30 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(Darth Obama on 529 plans: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.)
To: SeekAndFind
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.
To: KarlInOhio
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 ...
To: SeekAndFind
Other Expenses?
like ice..
and head bandages.
32
posted on
04/27/2015 8:38:44 AM PDT
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi - Revolution is a'brewin!!!)
To: SeekAndFind
The largest category (34%) is “other expenses.” I wonder what’s in that category, since it excludes salaries, benefits, travel, IT, supplies, and rent?
To: KarlInOhio
"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.
To: SeekAndFind
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.
To: SeekAndFind
Bon Jovi must have taken lessons from his good buddy Bill.
36
posted on
04/27/2015 8:54:16 AM PDT
by
surrey
To: Steve_Seattle
if Hillarys 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.
To: SeekAndFind
To: SeekAndFind
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."
39
posted on
04/27/2015 9:42:56 AM PDT
by
HotHunt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson