Posted on 11/20/2016 5:24:31 AM PST by FourtySeven
...
Despite scoring relatively high in accountability and transparency by nonprofit watchdogs, the foundation nonetheless became a flash-point in the 2016 election. It was dogged by accusations of influence peddling and conflicts of interests due in large part to hefty contributions from foreign governments and other influential donors. Since the organization's inception, tens of millions from big donors have flowed to the organization, according to the Foundation's public database.
As emails disclosed by WikiLeaks laid bare internal concerns about how the Clinton Foundation's funding might impact the former Secretary of State's run for the Oval Office, former President Bill Clinton announced in August that the nonprofit would reject corporate and foreign donations if Hillary Clinton prevailed in her campaign.
Yet as the country prepares to inaugurate President-elect Donald Trump, the point may be moot at best, philanthropy experts told CNBC recently. That is because neither Clinton will occupy a prominent role in government in the immediate future—curtailing the willingness of at least some big donors to try and curry favor with the foundation by writing large checks. Because Hillary Clinton is no longer seen as a president in waiting, contributors may look elsewhere and the foundation may have to rethink its scope and priorities, these experts say.
"I would expect there will be much greater difficulties in fundraising for the organization," Leslie Lenkowsky, a professor with Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University, told CNBC in an interview. Hillary Clinton "technically has no political prospects ahead of her. They're both important people, but dealing with a past president and future president were attractive to a number of donors," Lenkowsky said. Some of the largest checks came from a range of influential donors like the governments of Norway, Australia and Kuwait.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
1. Clinton said that if Hillary was elected, THEN the foreign donations would cease? Are you kidding me? Sure, it's technically 'ok' for their foundation to receive foreign donations while she was running (I guess), but wouldn't one think (if one had morals) that the appearance of a foundation you have control over receiving foreign money donations while you're running for President MIGHT be a bad idea? If she won, there wouldn't be any foreign donations accepted (yea right), but BEFORE, it's ok?? Again, you have to be kidding!
2. Look at this "expert" and his opinion (yes Leslie Lenkowsky is a 'he' apparently from context): what he's effectively saying is, "Oh, yes it's perfectly fine for someone who might be PRESIDENT to be receiving foreign monies via her 'charitable organization', yeah that's fine and perfectly expected. There couldn't possibly be any appearance of a conflict of interest, nope...." Again, are you KIDDING me? Dr. Lenkowsky, no, it's not ok for a possible future President to be involved in any way with foreign donations of any kind.
This article is a perfect glimpse into the mindset of the mind-numbed leftist, blissfully unaware of how incredibly biased he is, because we all know had there been any ties as Secty. Clinton had, such as millions from countries like Saudi Arabia or Morocco flowing into the Trump Foundation, it would have been all over the news painted as Trump in bed with terrorist haven countries! And people like Dr. Lenkowsky here would have been leading such a charge, no calm dismissals such as "dealing with ...a future president [is] attractive to a number of donors". Give me a BREAK!
Oh well, I guess this whole thing is really snicker-worthy, especially this from another "expert": "John Wonderlich, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, argued that Clinton's aborted political ambitions could be a "double-edged sword" for the foundation, liberating it to become more of a traditional nonprofit that's less susceptible to conflicts of interest."
*snicker* Yeah, more like a SINGLE edged sword pal. And way to spin the loss too, way to go with "liberating it to become a more traditional non-profit"...haha Yeah I'm sure that's a comforting salve for Hillary every night.
Double edged. One side for hillary and one side for bill :)
Forge another one for Huma and Weiner.
The only sword they need to worry about is the sword of sessions and pompeo. the American peole want heads to roll and roll they will
Hard to peddle influence when you have no influence to peddle.
Says how trustworthy these so-called watchdogs are. Much like most of the press, they are engaged in putting up protective smokescreens rather than doing the jobs they purport to do.
Despite scoring relatively high in accountability and transparency by nonprofit watchdogs,
The author lost me there. Must be leftist “nonprofit” “watchdogs”.
I will still keep the money.
Thanks for playing!!
Weiner and Huma have disappeared. Will she divorce him? NO!!
Despite scoring relatively high in accountability and transparency by nonprofit watchdogs, the foundation ...
CGI scored highly by non-profit “watchdog” once it paid said non-profit “watchdog”.
“A non-profit group that has received favors from the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), including a free membership that entitled its officials to rub elbows with world leaders, issued its top rating Thursday for the Clinton Foundation.
Charity Navigator awarded the Clinton Foundation four-stars based on an rating algorithm that scored the controversial non-profit with a 97.5 on financial issues and 93 on accountability and transparency.”
They’ve got to start peddling the possibility of Chelsea getting in politics to try to keep the payoffs rolling in.
“Despite scoring relatively high in accountability and transparency by nonprofit watchdogs, the foundation nonetheless became a flash-point in the 2016 election.”
This is the same foundation that was caught multiple times hiding donors and tax information? See, to the Clinton’s and their lackeys that is called transparency. To normal Americans it is called fraud being covered up.
From 2005....
Watchdog Cites Failures at Charity
http://www.nysun.com/national/watchdog-cites-failures-at-charity/20645/
Watch the numbers. My guess “contributions” to the Clinton’s Foundation have gone to zero and will stay there.
“I would expect there will be much greater difficulties in fundraising for the organization,”
Paging Captain Obvious...
Democrats who lose are lionized by the party. She’ll be more popular and sought after than ever. The more bigly they lose, the more revered they are. Look at Carter and Gore.
A lot of big lefties and more than a few foreign countries invested a lot in Clinton and have come up with empty pockets. Less to spend next time around.
LOL - I am sure hilLIARy is so grateful she is now “liberated” to do good things through her foundation.
ummm.. yeah, OK
Yep, read the 1st sentence then stopped. This article is BS!
Don’t forget the other Clinton future power broker, Chelsea.
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.