Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity, 85 percent on overhead

[geek tragedy]

Some 'populists' at DU have been posting/recommending this Limbaugh accusation as if it were true, so here's the reality (spoiler alert: Limbaugh and the Clinton Haters are full of it)

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/

When most people in the charitable world think of foundations, they think of organizations that give away a lot of money in the form of grants to others who go out and do good works. The Clinton foundation works differently -- it keeps its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs.

...

Our ruling

Limbaugh said "85 percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.

The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

[Hoyt]

1. Thanks for posting the facts.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Hey. Sphincter cyst spends one day per year on his charity.

[geek tragedy]

4. he has a charity?

Assuming his Viagra-fueled sex junkets to desperately poor countries don't count . . .

[Buzz Clik]

9. He used to. No idea if he still does it.

[underpants]

57. Not sure but he was selling orange "Club Gitmo" apparel

He thought it was just so clever, because torture.

Several people, including Veterans groups, said that he might give some of his profit (if there was any) to Vet groups. Rush dismissed the appeals with some blah blah about that's how capitalism works.

[former9thward]

3. You didn't post their tax return so I will.

Most of the money goes to salaries and overhead.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf

[closeupready]

15. From your link, page 16, in 2013, salaries RELATED TO program services

was $65M out of $78M spent. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but even so, that figure of 83% of salaries which went towards paying workers doing work to serve the programs objectives is VERY good, when compared with representative NGO's doing similar work.

Thus, while one can argue that they have flubbed on their tax returns in other areas, if one looks past that, and concedes this breakdown, there is no scandal here.

[geek tragedy]

26. your point being . . .? Never mind, I know what you're trying to do.

salaries of people engaged in providing service is still money spent on providing that service.

Just like the vast majority of most legal services organizations' budgets go to salaries.

So, fail. Just as the original attack was a fail.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

29. Oh we know their point, all too well. Weird how rush limbaugh garbage makes it way

to DU but if someone says they are pretty sure cops were involved in starting shit in Ferguson, they are silenced

weird

[former9thward]

43. By not posting the return I know what you are trying to do.

The percentage spent on salaries is far above most charities. But readers can look and judge for themselves. Thanks for the OP which gave people an opportunity to do that.

[geek tragedy]

49. .

The Charity Navigator designation was featured prominently in a New York Post story Monday, which also dissected the foundation's tax filing for 2013 and suggested that its spending is tilted toward administrative costs. For instance, according to the filing, the foundation spent $30 million in salaries and benefits and $8.7 million on rent and office expenses.

Borochoff said his organization looks at both tax filings and a charity's audited financial statement to analyze how much of spending goes to its charitable mission. He said, for instance, that an overall salary figure might be misleading — some salaries fund administrative workers, but other salaries go to charitable workers in the field. The Clinton Foundation has said that it employs 2,000 people around the world.

"Regardless of whether you like [Hillary Clinton's] politics or not, this is a good charity," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/27/independent-watch-groups-split-on-clinton-foundation/

if the foundation were a pass-through middleman, you'd have a point.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. That's not a tax return.

And yes, the presidential center is one of their program activities.

You might not approve, but nonprofit is how presidential libraries are run.

Compare the proportions of administrative, fundraising and program activities in the GWB Institute (above link) to the Clinton foundation.

[former9thward]

70. The tax return begins on page 39

and runs to page 155.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. You're right. Thanks. n/t

[Quackers]

5. I really don't know one way or the other.

This is the first I've heard of it. I do have a question though. It states that most of the 85% went to travel, salaries, and benefits but the foundation claims it does most of its charitable work in-house. Shouldn't the foundation have a breakdown of that 85% to show exactly what went to benefits, salaries, travel, and in-house charity work? A statement like that would shut the whole argument down.

[geek tragedy]

7. Have you read their annual report? nt

[Quackers]

14. No I haven't.

That's why I was wondering if such a breakdown existed. A simple posting like that would shut the argument against Clinton down.

[geek tragedy]

17. not really, because the argument was that all the money they spent internally

and directly was per se waste, fraud, and abuse.

It was a deceptive argument.

[Quackers]

20. I guess I'm still a little confused.

These are the numbers I've seen.

15% of donations went to charitable grants.

85% went to payroll, travel, and in-house charity work.

There has to be a breakdown of the 85%. What percent of that 85 went to in-house charity work?

[geek tragedy]

22. someone posted the information down thread nt

[Quackers]

27. Thank you!

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. a) their form 990 is posted downthread.

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/311/311580204/311580204_201312_990.pdf

b) It stands to reason that an organization dedicated to "improving global health and wellness" would incur major travel expenses.

[Quackers]

23. Ok, thanks!

I haven't seen it yet.

[closeupready]

25. Yes, without which expenses the foundation would fail to achieve its aims.

Thus, that's not 'overhead' in the sense that the term is meant in the private sector; it is an unavoidable PROGRAM-RELATED cost.

In THAT sense, every legitimate organization of which I know that ranks charities on the basis of how revenues are spent (the BBB, Guidestar, etc.) would consider the Clinton Foundation's revenues being spent in a responsible way, IMO.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

34. Well, I went to Guidestar

but they won't give me any info on the Clinton Global Initiative (or, presumably, anyone else) unless I pay them.

[closeupready]

35. They used to be free; well then, check the BBB.

They should have something.

More generally, I guess I was referring to standard guidance which these charity watchdog organizations talk about when guiding the public as to how to read financial statements, and what percentages are reasonable.

Cheers.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. The rule of thumb I've heard over the years

was no more than 30% in terms of all 'overhead', whether salaries, travel, office supplies, etc, meant it was a decent charity, with, obviously, the less spent on such categories, the better.

[geek tragedy]

53. salaries are not "overhead" if they are for workers directly providing

services to the population being served by the charity.

the salary for engineer designing a system for clean water distribution in sub-Saharan Africa is not "overhead"

Similarly, most employee salaries in general are not considered overhead in a business.

[jwirr]

6. There is an easy way to put a stop to this. Go to one of those charity rating sights and release the

figures.

[geek tragedy]

11. No, there is no easy way to stop Limbaugh and his fellow Clinton haters from spreading horseshit

on the Internet.

P.S. From the link:

Partly because of that, one of the leading independent groups that track charities -- Charity Navigator -- has been flummoxed about how to analyze that foundation and has stopped rating it, at least for now.

Charity Navigator says it has "determined that this charity's atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model."

The easy way is to not believe shit that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are saying.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. Here it is. According to their 2013 form 990, 80% of their spending was on program services.

Last edited Wed Apr 29, 2015, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/311/311580204/311580204_201312_990.pdf

[former9thward]

45. Not even close.

Less than 50% goes to program services according to their own report.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. I am arithmetic and you can too!

total functional expenses = $85 million
total program expenses = $68 million
68 / 85 = 80%

[former9thward]

61. They gave $24 million to the Clinton Presidential Library.

(P. 17) That was just one of their "program expenses." I guess you have to parse the meaning of "charity" to get to the real truth here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. page 17 of the pdf doesn't say that

what form are you talking about?

[former9thward]

67. The link I posted in post #3

which is the Clinton Foundation annual report.

[Populist_Prole]

8. This, coming from a mook who'd have no problem with that same balance if it were a rethug fascist

"It's their money!!!" as he would often screech.

[closeupready]

10. lol, well that's not exactly an unimpeachable source. Moving on.

Thanks for posting, though.

[geek tragedy]

12. It almost made the rec list after being quoted from another

rightwing website.

But, it got hidden after the 4th 'populist' recommended it.

[closeupready]

18. Additionally, if RL said this, he's nuts or lying, because he's reversed the numbers.

As I responded to former99thward above, 83% of salaries paid in 2013 were salaries directed towards those wage-earners on the Clinton Foundation payroll who are charged with serving the Clinton Foundation's aims.

Simple as that. He's nuts or lying.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. More to the point, an organization which spent 85% on grants and 15% on overhead...

... is a useless middleman - even if "only" 15%.

Organizations doing useful work don't give their donations away.

[rurallib]

21. didn't Hannity have some scam charity for soldiers

that raised millions and spent almost all of it on Hannity?
Hope the Limp one covers that.

[lpbk2713]

24. And what charities does OxyRush contribute to?

**Any fund raiser Karl Rove is a part of doesn't count.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. Based on the excerpt you provided

I think I would have said more than a 'grain of truth'.

What is 'charitable in-house work'? Giving grants to Chelsea?

and

it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work

Why is this not credible? Are we just supposed to assume that what is 'credible' to politifact staff is reality? Why didn't they actually try to come up with some proof that Limbaugh was wrong, rather than simply tell us to 'trust them'?

[geek tragedy]

32. if you think the Clintons are idiotic, simple-minded fraudsters willing to spend time in federal

prison I guess maybe it's credible to think they've falsified a decade's worth of reports and filings.

They hire people to do the work of improving lives.

It's not a giant hustle.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. I don't think they've falsified anything intentionally

(despite the 10s of millions of dollar 'corrections' they've apparently had to make of late in terms of foreign donations) but I prefer people who are not just random bloggers to actually provide some info behind their opinions, unless they just want to be considered as opinions.

[geek tragedy]

38. So if someone says it's inconceivable that Hillary had Vince Foster killed, you'd consider

that mere opinion and not a fact-based analysis?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

41. As I noted in my comment, it depends on who says something.

If someone with 'fact' in their name, for instance would say so, I'd expect some, I don't know, 'facts' to go along with a statement that, in a vacuum, is merely an opinion.

(I have no particular opinion on 'Vince Foster', because I've never bothered ever to read anything about it.)

[geek tragedy]

44. the FACTS of the charitable activities and spending of the Clinton foundations are

explicitly documented in their annual reports and federal tax forms.

The author clearly consulted those fillings and reports.

So, their conclusion is based on facts.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

47. Then why not share a few of those facts with us?

Tell us what percent the foundation actually spends on charity, and what percent on 'overhead'. If the author 'clearly consulted those filings and reports' then it would be duck soup for him/her to simply pop the numbers into his/her article. If he/she'd bothered to do that, we would actually know how much of a 'grain' of truth was present.

(ETA, the only numbers given actually sound like they support Limbaugh's assertion that the vast majority of the money isn't actually going to poor people. The guy who saw 'the facts' for some reason doesn't simply say 0 dollars were spent on things other than grants, but instead gives his opinion that something is 'inconceivable'. Ie, he doesn't actually know, but is making a guess.)

[geek tragedy]

51. You are failing to understand why Limbaugh's statements were false.

Money can be spent to help poor people without being given directly to poor people.

If you hire an engineer to build a well and water distribution system, or if you design a needle exchange and education program to reduce HIV, that is money spent to help poor people that is not given away.

The article discusses this fact, as well as noting this hard number:

The foundation says its own employees are doing its charitable work. The annual report -- which, remember, includes both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative -- says that 7 percent of expenditures were spent on "management and expenses" and 4.5 percent for "fundraising." (The numbers on the 990s for the two entities are in the same ballpark.)

Add those two percentages together and you get almost 12 percent; subtract that from 100 percent and you get the magic 88 percent figure the foundation cited.

An independent academic CPA who specializes in nonprofit foundation finances said Limbaugh’s error was in assuming that all spending beyond grants amounted to wasteful overhead.

Management expenses and fundraising=overhead.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. 80:20

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6589249

[SidDithers]

30. The right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary...

and, apparently, neither minds lying about her to smear her.

Sid

[kentuck]

31. How would he know?

Investigative reporting?

[mindwalker_i]

33. Rush spends 85% of his income on lard

[LibertyLover]

39. Lard?

Nah - he spends it on recreational drugs and well, recreating - probably in the Dominican Republic.

[Scurrilous]

40. i.e. himself

[mindwalker_i]

65. Good point

[Agschmid]

42. Kick, will read later.

[Orsino]

46. Therefore it doesn't.

That was easy.

[hobbit709]

50. If Oxycontin Boy's lips are moving, then he's blowing it out of his ass as usual.

[Kalidurga]

52. I don't think Rush ever tells the truth

It's probably a result of being a congential liar.

[madokie]

54. For starters

if lard ass limpballs says it it ain't true. You can pretty much bank on that being fact too

[liberal N proud]

55. I don't take too much faith in anything that blubbering idiot says

He may be dyslexic as well.

[louis-t]

56. What percent does Limbaugh's foundation spend on charity?

Oh, that's right.......

[seabeyond]

58. sheis a little high, but not too far off the mark of a well run org.

am i correct?

[mcar]

59. Now people are using Limbaugh as a source bere?

This has gone way beyond ridiculous. But, of course, they just have policy differences with HRC.

[geek tragedy]

62. No, Limbaugh picked up a story from one rightwing website, made the claims,

then another rightwing website (one that uses phrases like "Lenincare&quot published an op-ed attacking Clinton for it.

It was the "Lenincare" website that got quoted in the OP that was on its way to making the rec list when it got hidden (4-3)

[mcar]

72. And DU is on the receiving end of that RW chain

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.

[Andy823]

60. Anyone who uses Limbaugh

As a source is simply pushing right wing talking points. Do you have a link to one of those threads? I would appreciate it.

[geek tragedy]

63. will PM you nt

[SalviaBlue]

66. The Clinton Foundation spends 100%

more on charity than Rush Limbaugh.

[Buzz Clik]

73. Limbaugh vs Clintons: charitable giving

Last edited Thu Apr 30, 2015, 07:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Limbaugh is fairly generous in his direct give to charity, and he sponsors charitable drives. Limbaugh annually gives hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to the leukemia foundation, which is fantastic. Limbaugh's EIB Cure-a-Thon has raised a total of $15 million since 2006, which is also very nice.

The Clinton Foundation direct gifts were $75 million over 5 years (2009-2013), or $15 million per year. In direct giving, the Clintons have given $10.2 million over the past eight years.

Both are generous, but if one must compare:

Direct giving:

Limbaugh: $4 million (appx) over the past eight years.

Clintons: $10.2 over the past eight years

Charitable fund raising:

Limbaugh: $1.5 million per year

Clintons: $15 million per year


http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_page?item_id=9556
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042007/content/01125106.guest.html
http://www.twoifbytea.com/support.php
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/