[semimojo]

Not sure why I want to do this, but to be fair...

The 5.7 is just the amount granted to other charities. The “other expenses”category is where the money the foundation spent directly on good works would be reported.

Both the 5.7% and the 90% numbers could be correct.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The 5.7 is just the amount granted to other charities. The “other expenses”category is where the money the foundation spent directly on good works would be reported."

You are correct. Damn, just yesterday I threw away the actual figures, but I think the "other expenses" category was about 30-40% of total revenues. Since "other expenses" presumably includes operating expenses (rent, utilities, office supplies, etc.), the total expenditures for charity were probably more like 25-35% of revenues, still pretty dismal, but way more than the claimed figure of 5.7%

[Steve_Seattle]

Addendum: I agree with your basic point, EXCEPT I disagree that the Clinton Foundation’s actual expenditures on charity could be anywhere near 90%. If the CEO of Goodwill Industries makes $200,000 (I have no idea what the actual figure is), there is no way that Goodwill could claim that the CEO’s salary and benefits are a “charitable expense” just because the overall purpose of the organization is charitable. The salary and benefits are for the CEO, not for recipients of charity.