Suuuuuuuuuuuulzberger, you got some splainin' to do!
Posted on 06/08/2015 3:20:16 AM PDT by markomalley
A little-known private foundation controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton donated $100,000 to the New York Times’ charitable fund in 2008, the same year the newspaper’s editorial page endorsed Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, according to tax documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.
The Clinton Family Foundation, a separate entity from the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, has been the family’s vehicle for personal charitable giving since 2001.
It is funded directly by the Clintons and distributes more than $1 million a year to civic and educational causes.
The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund is a charity affiliated with the newspaper that assists underprivileged New Yorkers. It is run by members of the New York Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives.
The Times’ editorial board endorsed Clinton against Democratic challengers John Edwards and Barack Obama on January 25, 2008, writing that she was “more qualified, right now, to be president.”
At the time, there were reports that the Times board had leaned toward endorsing Obama, but was overruled by then-chairman and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., whose family controlled the paper. Sulzberger’s cousins and Times Company directors, Lynn Dolnick and Michael Golden, chaired the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund in 2008.
The Clinton Family Foundation did not list the specific date the donation was made in its public tax disclosure forms. Neither the Times nor a representative of the Clintons responded by press time to a request for comment. Clinton ended her presidential campaign on June 7, 2008.
The CFF’s $100,000 contribution to the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund is larger than its typical donations.
Of the 47 organizations the CFF donated to in 2008, only six groups received more than $50,000. Most received between $2,000 and $25,000. The CFF has not donated to the Neediest Cases Fund since 2008.
The Times endorsement was controversial at the time because there was speculation about whether it was swayed by pressure from the Clintons.
In February 2008, the New Republic reported that the Times editorial board had had two contentious meetings that January before Sulzberger “tipped the scales in [Clinton’s] favor.”
Vanity Fair also reported that May that Sulzberger intervened in favor of Clinton after he was lobbied heavily by one of Clinton’s top financial backers.
“The Times editorial board was, apparently, planning to endorse Barack Obama in the New York primary; the Clinton campaign, getting wind of this, called upon one of its major financial supporters [Steven Rattner], the best friend and principal adviser of Arthur Sulzberger Jr.,” Michael Wolff wrote in Vanity Fair.
“Rattner is thought to have petitioned Sulzberger, and Sulzberger thereupon overruled his editorial board, which then backed Clinton.”
Andrew Rosenthal, the New York Times editorial page editor, denied the Vanity Fair story at the time, calling it “completely false.”
The CFF’s largest contribution in 2008 was $1,000,000 to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation (then named the William J. Clinton Foundation). The donation made up nearly half of the $2.4 million the foundation dispersed that year.
The CFF’s donations to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation continued to dwarf its other distributions between 2009 and 2013. The Clintons gave their higher-profile foundation $352,000 in 2011, $220,000 in 2012 and $300,000 in 2013.
Hillary Clinton served as the CFF’s treasurer during her tenure at the U.S. Department of State and listed it in her financial disclosures. The Washington Post reported in 2007 that Clinton had previously omitted her role at the foundation in her Senate disclosure forms.
The Clintons also contributed $35,000 to the Diane Blair archive at the University of Arkansas Special Collections between 2006 and 2011. The Free Beacon was briefly banned from the library last summer after reporting on documents from the Blair collection and others that shed light on Clinton’s legal defense of a child rapist.
The Blair papers were closed to the public during Clinton’s last presidential campaign. They were opened for the first time in 2010.
The CFF also contributed to the Dale Bumpers archive housed in the same library. The University of Arkansas Special Collections pulled Bumpers’ diary from the archive in March at the request of his family after Mother Jones reported on unflattering entries about the Clintons.
In addition, the CFF gave $207,000 between 2006 and 2013 to the Central Arkansas Library System, a public library which houses Bill Clinton’s papers from his time as Arkansas governor. Access to the collection is tightly restricted, and must be approved by the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Clintons never use their own money. I wonder from whose pocket he got that $100K?
They don't have any. They were dead broke when they left the White House. They are just regular folks like us.
It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if both of them had filed for unemployment when he left the White House and she from State Department. They were probably claiming Chelsea as a dependent, to boot.
More important than Hellery is media bias. Expose the bias AND corruption, and the mud-stream news is Zip, Zero, Nada. They are more vulnerable than they appear.
The NYT is the Gray Lady. Last I heard [out of touch lately], this was the leader of ALL mud-stream snooze.
So they take bribes? We always assumed it. Now it’s public record.
“Sulzberger’s cousins and Times Company directors, Lynn Dolnick and Michael Golden, chaired the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund in 2008.”
That’s how ‘charity’ turns into a cash cow for corrupt politicians and their cronies, like that Kennedy ‘charity’ job that paid [or pays] $1 million a year and was funded in part by Hugo Chavez. [Fuzzy memory alert]
Same for the NYT apparently.
And yet, so very, very cheaply, too. $100K from a corrupt foundation empire that has amassed near a billion dollars. And they sell their very souls for a pittance. The phrase two-bit hoors comes to mind.
That is what I was thinking. What a cheap street whore is the New York Times.
A bunch of old racist white guys endorsed H*****y over Ohsoblack Obomba.
I doubt that they needed to be paid to do that.
Suuuuuuuuuuuulzberger, you got some splainin' to do!
Hillary could crap in the punch bowl at the NY Times annual Winter Holiday Party and they’d still enthusiastically endorse her.
The steady downward spiral of the Slimes and of Hitlery's candidacy puzzles analysts. Thanks markomalley.
Oh. Right.
TEXTBOOK CASE IN FOUNDATION FRAUD: The lesser-known "Clinton Family Foundation" made its largest contribution in 2008---$1,000,000 to the now-notorious "Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation" (originated as "The William J. Clinton Foundation")...nearly half the $2.4 million the family foundation dispersed that year. The CFF’s donations to the notorious B/H/C Foundation continued to dwarf its other distributions between 2009-13...... $352,000 in 2011, $220,000 in 2012 and $300,000 in 2013.
NOTE WELL: Hillary Clinton served as the CFF’s treasurer during her tenure as Secy of State...and listed it in her financial disclosures. The Washington Post reported in 2007 that then-Sen Clinton had previously omitted her role at the foundation in her official Senate disclosure forms.
"Smile everybody. Another $100 million came in today."
The New York Times was laying off staff - slashing the newsroom to ribbons AND they were running a million dollar charity? Really, they deserve to fail...
And Congress remains deaf, blind, and mute? Is it because they’re just as corrupt and care so little about their country? Perhaps they need to all be sent packing in 2016 and 2018?
Don’t think anyone should trust the Clintons - they’re capable of anything. But I don’t believe the New York Times would assist with money laundering. Not their style.
That said, you’ve got the Clintons pegged Liz...
Well, of course-—I did not intend to imply the NYT was aiding and abetting the Clintons’ money-laundering.
However, on second thought-——consider the “tolerant and compassionate” liberal mindset-—and the cunning money-hungry Clintons.
The NYT foundation might easily have been inveigled into parting w/ tax-free monies to “help the needy”...that never got to the intended cause.
That's possible. It would be nice if we have a free press that could look into it - rather than the state run press we have now.
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.