Clinton Foundation gets 'A' rating for spending 88-89% of funds on charity

[Triana]

LINK: https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Other charities in the same category: https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Governance & Transparency Benchmarks: https://www.charitywatch.org/governance-and-transparency/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Interesting article from FactCheck.org on Carly Fiorina's smears of Clinton Fdn: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

[niyad]

1. off to greatest, and waiting for the usual in 3. . . 2 . . . . 1. .

[Gabi Hayes]

4. howziss?

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+foundation+charity+spending+percentage&biw=1093&bih=470&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiir4PQyMjNAhXCth4KHefoBpgQ_AUIBSgA&dpr=1.25

do NOT Click on that newsexaminer link>>>>first one

http://www.weeklystandard.com/for-years-trumps-charity-gave-veterans-little-more-than-peanuts/article/2000776


Donald Trump says he's skipping the final debate before the Iowa caucuses on Thursday night because he's upset with Fox News and debate moderator Megyn Kelly. Trump will instead hold a "special event to benefit veterans organizations" in Iowa, according to a campaign press release. But the event could come off as a cheap political stunt exploiting veterans, especially because the Donald J Trump Foundation has been far from generous to veterans organizations over the years.


As Emily Canal of Forbes reported in October: "The Donald J. Trump Foundation has donated $5.5 million to 298 charities between 2009 and 2013 (the most recent year available), according to the non-profit's 990 tax forms from those years. Of that, only $57,000 has been donated to seven organizations that directly benefit military veterans or their families, Forbes found. Wounded Warriors was not among the organizations Trump's foundation gave to in that time period."

knock yourselves out on the links to find out what a cheapskating fraud Doncon is, in, apparently, EVERY aspect of his life

[larkrake]

49. an obvious fraud is Donnie

[Hortensis]

72. The planetary scale of the Clinton Global Initiative,

organizing people to take charge and tackle problems large and small in (usually) their own nations, is I hope not just visionary but eventually beyond awesome. Much good has been done in its young years.

From HuffPost:

The 10-year-old initiative has facilitated programs that aided more than 430 million people in 180 countries, with government, private and civil-society entities working together in 90 percent of the programs, he noted at the initiative’s annual meeting.

“There are some people who don’t understand it or question whether it’s a good idea,” the Democratic former president said, but it’s gotten results.

Forty-six million children have better educational opportunities, more than 110 million women and children have better access to health care, and clean drinking water is more available to over 27 million people, he said.

[tavernier]

2. And of course Trump will immediately Twitter

that he donates much more to his favorite charity, Single Super Models With Big Jugs.

[mcar]

3. Great!

[Peacetrain]

5. K&R!!

[Surya Gayatri]

6. Massive K & R for the dose of positive reality...

[ismnotwasm]

7. K&R

[William769]

8. Kick & highly Recommended!

[litlbilly]

10. Im sure the FBI will take that into consideration

[MohRokTah]

11. The Clintons have had more lies told about them than any couple in the history of the world.

This just proves that all the crap thrown at the Clinton Foundation is just that, crap.

[lewebley3]

26. The Clintons are the most honest people in politics: we know because

they have been investigated by everyone: an noting was ever found.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. But ... Are they really lies, if one really wants to believe it AND ...

you can get others that want to believe it to believe it!

{I know ... Yes, it's still a lie}

[MariaThinks]

12. remember all the political dramaists who would shake their heads sadly at the mention of the Clinton

Foundation to convey their suspicions? Like benghisi.

The Clinton's continue to do great work.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Thats pretty good OpEx for a charity.

[Hekate]

14. In all their decades in public life, the Clintons have striven to do good...

The Clinton Foundation is an outstanding culmination of those efforts.

They assuredly have done well financially also, and congratulations to them on that score. They aren't perfect, God knows.

But every damned time I get a look at their persecutors on the GOP/RW/wingnut side, I see lies and hypocrisy rank enough to gag a goat. With the RW it's never been about simply disagreeing on principle, it's always seemed to be a matter of trying to utterly destroy both Clintons. With help from the MSM. I've always asked myself what kind of threat does the RW feel the Clintons pose to them that they have expended this much time, energy, and tax money on trying to kill them off?

So far, the RW has failed. The most damage they've managed to achieve is to convince some ignoramuses on the Left that "there must be something to it."

If a person can be judged in part by the quality of the enemies they have made, well let me congratulate Bill and Hillary, and thank them sincerely for the work of their Foundation.

[pnwmom]

19. +1000. n/t

[Hekate]

63. Thanks. I see Post Removed chimed in, too. Whee.

[SunSeeker]

15. K & R

[Upthevibe]

16. Kick n/t

[tallahasseedem]

17. That is an amazing percentage...

for a charity that size. I'm proud of them!

[pnwmom]

18. Thanks for fighting the RW lies with the facts!

[spanone]

20. K&R...

[obamanut2012]

21. Yeah, I don't get all the smears against the Foundation

They've always gotten good marks.

[NewJeffCT]

24. Easy target to create doubt

even though it's been well regarded for as long as I can remember. If you get Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, The Washington Times and NY Post and others making implications that it's a political slush fund for foreign leaders and businessmen to bribe the Clintons, it's easy enough for the Dittoheads and Fox News followers to believe it. And, if they start believing it, it slips into real news coverage, even if it is to rebut what's on Fox or on Rush. Then, it just feeds into the "where there is smoke, there is fire" message that Republicans have been crafting on the Clintons for 25 years. ("All those problems, there must be something there or else why keep bringing it up?&quot

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. True; but more

If you get Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, The Washington Times and NY Post and others making implications that it's a political slush fund for foreign leaders and businessmen to bribe the Clintons, And get members on the Left, repeating the allegations it's easy enough for the Dittoheads and Fox News followers to believe it.

[lewebley3]

27. Ageed: and this rating puts all the lies about the foundation to rest

[Chicago1980]

87. I doubt that's the case.

There's a reason why something is a lie in the first place, because the truth didn't matter to begin with.

We're talking about the republicans here.

[tarheelsunc]

94. Not just Republicans. eom

[lunamagica]

22. K&R. Thank you, thank you so much for posting this! This is who the Clintons really are

I admire their strength and resilience so much!

After all the attacks and smears they've endured all these years I wouldn't have blame them if they had just given up, retire, and enjoy the easy life. But that's not the kind of people they are.

Thank you, Bill and Hillary.

[Tribalceltic]

23. Classy just so Classy .. k & R

[liberal N proud]

25. That is part of the reason the right wing hates it so much

[Sheepshank]

28. They are in line with some of the best charities that keeps overhead very low

http://charity.lovetoknow.com/What_Percentage_of_Donations_Go_to_Charity

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. What help did Peterson provide provide? ... Or, did you just make that up?

[chapdrum]

36. See the link attached.

http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/Tax-Form-990-2014-PF.pdf

The last entry on p. 39 (sorry, the original has images sideways).

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Okay ... I read the page and saw that the Peterson Foundation gave money to CGI-America ...

and am still puzzled as to how that may have helped the Clinton Foundation in getting an "A" rating?

[chapdrum]

51. There isn't a connection.

It's of more consequence (to me) that the Clintons speak at Peterson-sponsored events. His background (and agenda) speaks for itself.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. Oh ... so you DID make it up? ...

in order to give you a platform for "crooked Hillary" ... sad.

[chapdrum]

64. I made nothing up.

You're free to ignore it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. Yes you did ... you made up the lie that the Peterson Foundation help the Clinton Foundation ...

get an "A" rating ... which was what the OP is entitled and which you responded: "With help from the Peterson Foundation". Remember?

[LanternWaste]

57. reliance on the Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy to better reinforce a deeply treasured bias.

Ahhh.... reliance on the Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy to better reinforce a deeply treasured bias. That's special.

[sulphurdunn]

70. The post was perfectly clear

and committed no logical fallacy. Accusation without explanation is, of course, not a rebuttal. Please be so kind as to explain the particulars of Post 51 to the post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy.

[Chicago1980]

88. Ahh... A 'The West Wing' reference.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[sulphurdunn]

40. The Peter Peterson Foundation

is a large contributor to both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. That's a fact. The "did you just make that up" insult was out of line, even for a true believer.

http://www.pgpf.org/what-we-are-doing/grants-and-projects

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. Well, perhaps YOU can answer my question ...

How is making a contribution to the Foundation, helpful in the Foundation's gaining an "A" rating?

Your "true believer" insult failed to make it clear.

[sulphurdunn]

44. I apologize for the "true believer" crack.

It was just a response in kind. I was only attempting to make clear that the Peter Peterson Foundation is a contributor to the Clinton's philanthropic undertakings, and I might add that reducing and privatizing Social Security is a primary goal of that organization.

[mcar]

46. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the OP

That donation is irrelevant to the foundation's excellent rating.

[sulphurdunn]

47. Then that is what should have been said

rather than asking the poster if he was just making stuff up, which he wasn't. Since we've gone all in on civility here, we should remember that it applies to Clinton supporters too.

[chapdrum]

50. That is my point.

Thank you.

[LanternWaste]

60. When attempting to make a point, clarity is key.

When attempting to make a point, clarity is key. If we hide behind implication in an attempt to look clever, we fail at making the point and in being clever.

[chapdrum]

69. You win the clever crown.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. I know who Peterson is and what he represents; but, again, how is his contribution ...

at all related to the Foundation's "A" rating? ... which is what the poster indicated.

BTW, I will leave unaddressed, why you would feel the need to "respon{d} in kind" to someone that wasn't speaking to you.

[sulphurdunn]

65. Because I didn't like you comment or your tone.

I already explained that the "rating" was not the issue I was addressing. It was the demeaning comment in your post. Got it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. So you make it a practice to ...

Insult others, who were not talking to, or about, you; because you don't like what the person said or their tone?

That's probably not a wise practice for life anywhere outside of the internet.

[1StrongBlackMan]

75. Yes ... It's best to keep that practice in the safety that online line toughness allows.

You need to settle down and back off.

You came at me, like Super-Save-A-Thot.

[giftedgirl77]

79. I think they just wanted you to know your place 1SBM.

God forbid you were actively proving them wrong in every response. Facts & logic be damned.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Ya think? ...

People, now, unembarrassedly, post the absolutely most false of statements, then want to argue that they are right, even as they admit that what they said was false.

And others, want to pile on the falseness, then get their fee fees hurt when they get shook off.

[fleabiscuit]

93. +1

[CAG]

82. I guess the Peterson Foundation could have given

All of that money to the Burch Society or the Tea Party, then I guess that would have made Clinton-haters happier

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. It wouldn't have been an issue, worth mentioning.

[Midnight Writer]

92. A primary goal of the Peterson Foundation. Not of the Clinton Foundation.

Can anyone here, anyone, point to a single piece of evidence, just one, that any of the money donated to the Clinton charity made it into the personal pocket of Hillary Clinton?

The fact that Peter Peterson donated to the Clinton charity and Clinton DOES NOT SUPPORT privatizing Social Security speaks FOR her integrity, not against.

Instead, the Foundation directed this asshole's cash to projects like AIDS medications for the poor around the world.

[Hekate]

34. Links and sources please to back up your claims

[chapdrum]

37. See the link attached.

http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/Tax-Form-990-2014-PF.pdf

The last entry on p. 39 (sorry, the original has images sideways).

[creeksneakers2]

71. So what?

The Clintons don't want to privatize social security. They sure aren't going to change their minds because they received a speaking fee.

[still_one]

33. Thanks Triana for presenting an objective analysis

[Beacool]

35. Wait, I thought that it was just a front to launder foreign cash.

Congratulations to the Clinton family and to Bill in particular. This is his baby. He could have retired like Bush Sr. to play golf, instead he established a foundation that has helped thousands of people around the world.

[Thinkingabout]

58. Exactly, I am quiet proud of President Carter and Clinton, they continued to work for

The less fortunate. The Democratic training continued.

[Rex]

38. Once again, there is no scandal...but that won't stop the GOP from lying over and over.

Anyone can do a little research and find out the Clinton Foundation is legit.

[arcane1]

53. This would be a great OP. Or would have been two weeks ago.

I doubt it would be permitted today, as only flattering facts are allowed.

[OnyxCollie]

59. I posted some of it as an OP nearly a year ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027149484

[LanternWaste]

61. I'd pretend as much as as well if it validated my biases.

"as only flattering facts are allowed..."

I'd pretend as much as as well if it validated my biases. However, as the need for melodrama to illustrate our self-portrait of oppression and martyrdom is indeed, a large part of life in high school, I empathize.

[OnyxCollie]

62. Let's see what happens.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027961857

[bhikkhu]

43. Having checked on a few charities in the past, 89% is excellent, about as good as it gets

Many charities are at 50% or less, donations vs charity work, spending more on fundraising and payroll than actually doing anything.

Personally I've gotten rather tired of hearing the Clintons smeared for having a charitable foundation, and hearing contributors smeared even worse. The foundation is doing good work, and if we are to judge something, it should be judged on what it does, not whose name is on it or who contributed.

[retrowire]

45. hmmm... something to consider. nt

[riversedge]

55. REC. and Thank you for the post.

[leveymg]

76. The primary reason for that is that unlike most charities, the Foundation has foreign gov'ts, huge

multinationals and a network of politically-connected donors and thus doesn't have to pay substantial advertising costs to raise funds. While it receives many small donations, it has a network of huge donors, including nation-states such as Saudi Arabia which contribute tens of millions of dollars.

Cumulatively, that has added up to some $3 billion over 41 years, much of that in recent years since Hillary left the State Department. According to a recent Washington Post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/

The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family’s charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974 congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 White House run, which has already drawn $110 million in support.

The Washington Post observed a year earlier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-raised-nearly-2-billion-for-foundation-since-2001/2015/02/18/b8425d88-a7cd-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html

Foundation tax records show that it reported raising $1.69 billion in cash and pledges between 2001 and 2013, the last year for which documents are available. As of the end of 2014, donations reached nearly $2 billion, foundation officials confirmed. The scope of the foundation’s finances show the unparalleled fundraising power of one of the world’s most important political brands.

“To be raising $250 million a year, certainly puts them in the top ranks of U.S. nonprofits in terms of fundraising,” said Steven Lawrence, director of research for the Foundation Center, which studies philanthropy. Lawrence said the Clintons’ ability to draw support from overseas — a coveted goal for many U.S. charities and university endowments — was especially unusual.


. . .

The donor list shows that the foundation has relied most heavily on seven donors that have each given more than $25 million, including a foundation established by a Canadian mining magnate, Frank Giustra; the national lottery of Holland; and Chicago-based Democratic donor Fred Eychaner. Other major donors giving at lower levels run the gamut of industries and interests, such as the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs, beverage giant Coca-Cola, and the governments of Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

[Kingofalldems]

73. Boom. And down go the republicans and their internet minions.

[TexasBushwhacker]

77. And they don't take salaries

I was pretty disgusted when I found out that Tim Shriver was pulling down over $250K as CEO of Special Olympics.

[KentuckyWoman]

81. I'm actually somewhat disappointed.

I'm not bashing the Clintons or the foundation. They do great work...... I just kind of expected the high 90% range on an A rated charity. I know small local charities that operate with less than 5% overhead and surprised a charity this big runs at 11 - 12%.

[Adrahil]

90. Given that they are an international charity...

There is no doubt significant overheaed dealing with mutliple governments, international travel, etc.

[KentuckyWoman]

96. Point well taken

They do operate in quite a lot of places where greasing palms in the ONLY way to get needed services, food or medicine to people who need it. I had not thought of that and it does change my opinion.

Thank you.

[Skittles]

84. the haters must be reeling

IN YOUR FACE!!!

[ProudProgressiveNow]

85. K&R nt

[niyad]

86. . . .

[Warren DeMontague]

91. This is good news.

Obviously, everything associated with the Clintons will be under a microscope. If the foundation is running a tight ship, that's great.

[stonecutter357]

95. K&R!