Clinton Charitable Giving is to Clinton Charity

[TheDoorbellRang]

Clinton Charitable Giving is to Clinton Charity
By Amanda Carpenter
Friday, April 4, 2008


Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign released their tax forms from 2000-2007 Thursday, which showed the Clintons earned more than $100 million in that time period and donated $10 million of that to their own charity.

The Clinton campaign reports donating $10,256,741 to the CFF between 2000 and 2006. During that time, CFF dispersed $2,530,100 in money to other charities and causes.

~snip~

Over the years, the CFF gave $80,000 to the Clinton Birthplace Foundation Inc., $20,000 to the Shakespeare Theatre, $40,000 to the School of the American Ballet, $5,000 to the YMCA of Martha’s Vineyard, $10,000 to Amnesty International.

The CFF also donated money to the Immanuel Baptist Church in Shackelford, Arkansas, Georgetown and Yale each year.

CFF lost a significant amount of money in the last two tax reporting years. CFF claimed $4.3 million assets on their 2005 IRS 990 forms. CFF reported much less, $255,890, on their most recent 2006 tax forms. It is not immediately clear from reading the forms where the money went or why assets were lost.

more...


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/04/clinton_charitable_giving_is_to_clinton_charity

:popcorn:

[Rosemary2205]

1. I believe you can thank the screwy tax laws for this.

The owner of the business I work for gives his charitable money to a foundation he set up. This man has earned every thin dime he has. I don't blame him for doing what he has to do to keep as much of his money as he can. -- and a lot of good things are done by the foundation.

[bilgewaterbill]

2. Townhall? Hugh Hewitt's site? Michael Medved's hangout?

I'm no Hillary fan but are we resorting to using the guns of our enemies?

[Kittycat]

3. Interesting.. They donate to their own foundation, that is "losing" money?

hmmm....

[onenote]

15. what are talking about -- the foundation is not "losing" money. You can look up its returns

if you're interested, although I suspect you arent.

[kid a]

4. CFF = Tax shelter

[democrattotheend]

5. But doesn't the Clinton Foundation then give to other causes?

I thought they set up a foundation to manage their charitable giving...is that wrong?

[merh]

12. Sure to Yale Law School, Georgetown University, Wellesley College and Oxford University

Clintons' Charity Not Listed On Senate Disclosure Forms

The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.

-snip

Among the institutions receiving grants from the Clinton Family Foundation were Yale University, where both attended law school; groups named for deceased heads of state in Israel and Jordan; and a charity connected to the Arkansas businessman who helped Hillary Clinton make $100,000 on a commodities trade that stirred controversy a decade ago, Internal Revenue Service reports show.

-snip-

The charity is separate from the New York-based William J. Clinton Foundation, which has directed $10 billion in corporate money and resources toward slowing the global spread of AIDS, addressing climate change, and reducing hunger and poverty in developing countries.

-snip-

The Clintons have been generous to their alma maters, with donations going to Yale Law School, Georgetown University, Wellesley College and Oxford University, which Bill Clinton attended on a Rhodes Scholarship.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601542_pf.html

[thewiseguy]

14. This is outrageous...

[onenote]

22. why is it outrageous?

Is giving to a university now considered "outrageous"? I give to my alma mater and am damn proud of the fact I do.

By the way, here are some other "outrageous" recipients of donations from the Clinton Family Foundation:
Blythedale Children's Hospital $100K
Desmond Tutu Peace Foundation $25K
Natl Breast Cancer Coalition $25K
Walter Sisulu Pediatric Care Centre for Africa $30K
Wellstone Action Fund $5K
Ron Brown Scholarship $5K
Chappaqua Volunteer Fire Dept $5K
Chappaqua Volunteer Ambulance $5K
American Nurses Foundation $35K
Shakespeare Theatre Co $20K
School of American Ballet $40K
Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund $25K
Central Arkansas Library System $25K
Eliz. Glaser Pediatric Aids Fndtn $5K
Arkansas Cancer Reserach Center $100K
United Church of Christ $3600
Jon Michael Moore Trauma Center $5K


I'm sure these are all horrible organizations. Maybe you could launch a hate mail campaign directed at them for being 'outrageous' recipients of charitable donations from the Clintons.

Or maybe you could stop being stupid.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[democrattotheend]

19. Ok, I guess I was thinking of the William J. Clinton Foundation

I knew Bill Clinton had started a foundation that did a lot on AIDS and global poverty...didn't realize this was something separate.

[democrattotheend]

21. What's wrong with giving to their alma maters?

[Maddy McCall]

13. Of course it does. That's the purpose of a charitable foundation.

But DUers are intent on smearing even their benevolent work...it's crazy here.

[kid a]

6. Wait...4.3 million down to 255,890 in one year? hmmmm

[Rosemary2205]

7. Africa?

[Stephanie]

8. Well who else would be worthy?

They have enough to do just thinking about themselves! Thinking about ther people is for other people!

[TexasObserver]

9. Foundation returns are public records. They should show expenses and grants.

If the expenses are too high, or the grants too low, that's a problem.

If they're self dealing, that's a problem, too. I suspect there will be instances of self dealing, since some of the grant recipients appear to connected to the Clintons.

I'm curious to know who got salaries, and how much those salaries were.

[onenote]

25. the Clinton Family Foundation has virtually no expenses other than charitable gifts

In 2006, the Foundation's revenues were $1.69 million, consisting of a $1.58 million contribution from the Clintons and interest earned on the Foundation's residual principal of $112,000. The charity handed out a total of $1.27 million to 50 different charities in amounts ranging from $500 to $100,000. The foundation pays no salaries to anyone and had total operating and administrative expenses of $3699 -- $1945 in accounting costs and $1724 in taxes. The remaining $400,000 that was not donated this year becomes part of the foundation's residual principal and will (a) earn interest for the foundation and (b) be available for charitable giving in future years.

Compare that to most charitable foundations and I think you'll find its a very good organization.

[Maddy McCall]

10. DAMN THEM for using their money to help AIDS and Malaria victims!

Damn them!!

[me b zola]

44. The constant gardeners!

Millions of $$ to big pharma = tons of manurer!

More of Clinton "solutions". Thanks, but I want change from that way of thinking/policy.

[thewiseguy]

11. How can they have a loss of 4 million dollars in assets?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. where did it say that?

[thewiseguy]

17. Here:

CFF lost a significant amount of money in the last two tax reporting years. CFF claimed $4.3 million assets on their 2005 IRS 990 forms. CFF reported much less, $255,890, on their most recent 2006 tax forms. It is not immediately clear from reading the forms where the money went or why assets were lost.

more...

[BlueIdaho]

18. Quite a change between 2005 and 2006

2005 - 4.3 million in assets
Bill Clinton - CFF President,
Hillary Clinton - Secretary/treasurer and daughter
Chelsea Clinton -Director

2006 - $255,890 in assets
Gloria Clinton - CEO
Erlinda Valdez - Secretary and
Catherina Hillman - Treasurer

[phrigndumass]

31. I wonder if the Clintons were "paid" for their CFF services?

If that's true, and if CFF is non-profit under 501(c)(3), then it would be very easy to argue that their donations to CFF would NOT be tax-deductible.

"For tax purposes, no goods or services were received in exchange for this gift" would come into question. If one or both of them received contractual pay or honoraria from CFF, unless payroll taxes were withheld, this would be double-dipping.

This would all send up a red flag for me, and I would definitely want to know more.

Good catch, TDR! And good info, BlueIdaho!




On edit: Change TheDoorbellRang's initials to TDR instead of TBR (duh!)

[onenote]

33. No, the Clintons' were not paid. The CFF has virtually no expenses.

And the 'good catch' you are commending may be the stupidest post in the history of DU.

The family foundation formed by the Clinton's has been filing publicly available (online) returns for several years. Why don't you educate yourself by looking them up and seeing what they say. You apparently would be surprised.

[phrigndumass]

37. Um ...

I'm gonna check it out anyway. Thanks for the love, onenote! Love ya back! :loveya: :freak:



.
(omg, I win for commending the "stupidest post in the history of DU!")

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phrigndumass]

38. Thanks for the links!!!!!!!!!!

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[BlueIdaho]

46. Yup - My Bad!

Yes I am guilty I didn't do my homework - thanks for the correction and the added accuracy. By the way I'm a Moron not a Moran ;)

[onenote]

47. actually, the Moran is Amanda Carpenter, the RW idiot who wrote the original article

It should be a lesson to folks not to unquestioningly accept information from a source as dubious as townhall.com

Live and learn, I always say.

[BlueIdaho]

51. You are kind. nt.

[FrenchieCat]

20. in the text of the article in the OP.

CFF claimed $4.3 million assets on their 2005 IRS 990 forms. CFF reported much less, $255,890, on their most recent 2006 tax forms. It is not immediately clear from reading the forms where the money went or why assets were lost.


Although the source is dubious, it will be coming up to mainstream press by Monday. And since Hillary supporters are always worried about what the RW thinks when it comes to Obama and his Pastor......I guess this is more of that....

[TheDoorbellRang]

23. I wasn't familiar with the source.

Didn't realize it was dubious.:blush:

It does seem that there will be a bit more vetting needed for Hillary, tho.

[onenote]

34. It won't come upt to the mainstream media because they arent' as stupid as those who posted this

The foundation with 255,000 in assets is a different foundation, set up by a different family named Clinton (located in Salinas CA) from the Foundation set up by Bill/Hillary (situated in NY). Both foundations filed returns for 2006. The Bill/Hillary Clinton foundation reported assets of $4.3 million (up from $3.9 in 2005).

You really have to be dense or dishonest not to recognize that these are unrelated entities (different tax numbers, etc etc).

[onenote]

27. what are you talking about? There has been no loss of assets.

The Foundation has a residual principal of around $4 million -- money that the Clinton's have donated to the foundation that has not been given away yet. It earns interest for the Foundation and is duly reported on the Foundation's tax filings.

The Clinton Family Foundation is very well run with virtually no administrative or accounting costs. You should do some research before you spread misinformation (being charitable here by not accusing you of just lying)

[peaches2003]

24. I'm NOT a fan of the Clintons anymore, but

what is outrageous about their charitable foundation? This is exactly what people with this kind of money arrange for tax purposes and also to control their charitable giving. Assets aren't "lost"; they are used and donated and then additional funds are put into the foundation. These foundations are heavily regulated and you can be sure the Clintons' foundation would be particularly cautious not to run into a problem with the IRS. I no longer can stand either Clinton, but on this issue I will defend them.

If they want to give to their colleges and universities, what's the problem? Most universities depend on these kind of gifts and donations. You can pick your charities and they can pick theirs which will usually be something the foundation's donors are connected to.

[KittyWampus]

28. charities can be used as a sort of tax dodge or slush funds. NOT saying that's the case here.

as much as I loath the Clintons, this is something that experts need to dissect

[TexasObserver]

30. Maybe you should not assume they're so clean.

Contrary to your supposition, Foundations are not closely monitored by the IRS, and there are many, many foundations that engage in prohibited forms of self dealing, including indirect self dealing. It's likely they have used their Foundation to funnel money to people and causes they can use politically, like to those associated with superdelegates.

Also, there are specific limits on the level of salaries and those may have been violated. It's far too soon to conclude one way or another, but given the way they typically do things, it would not be a surprise to see them misuse the charitable foundation for political purposes.

What were the salaries?

Who got them?

What were the grants?

Who is connected to the entities that got the grants?

Were any of the grant recipients affiliated with the Clintons?

[onenote]

41. if you really wanted to know the answers to your questions, you could look at the returns

I suspect you don't want to because it won't fit with your predisposed assumptions, which basically show you to be quite ill-informed. Here, let me help you out.

In 2006, the Foundation's revenues were $1.69 million, consisting of a $1.58 million contribution from the Clintons and interest of $112,000 earned on the Foundation's residual principal. The foundation handed out a total of $1.27 million to 50 different charities in amounts ranging from $500 to $100,000. The foundation pays no salaries to anyone and had total operating and administrative expenses of $3699 -- $1945 in accounting costs and $1724 in taxes. The remaining $400,000 that was not donated this year becomes part of the foundation's residual principal and will (a) earn interest for the foundation and (b) be available for charitable giving in future years.

By the way, here are some of the organizations receiving gifts from the Clinton Family Foundation in 2006:



Blythedale Children's Hospital $100K
Desmond Tutu Peace Foundation $25K
Natl Breast Cancer Coalition $25K
Walter Sisulu Pediatric Care Centre for Africa $30K
Wellstone Action Fund $5K
Ron Brown Scholarship $5K
Chappaqua Volunteer Fire Dept $5K
Chappaqua Volunteer Ambulance $5K
American Nurses Foundation $35K
Shakespeare Theatre Co $20K
School of American Ballet $40K
Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund $25K
Central Arkansas Library System $25K
Eliz. Glaser Pediatric Aids Fndtn $5K
Arkansas Cancer Reserach Center $100K
United Church of Christ $3600
Jon Michael Moore Trauma Center $5K

A number of other gifts went to the Clinton's church and to their alma maters (Yale, Georgetown, Wellesly).

[TexasObserver]

58. I checked the returns, and they appear to be clean.

As noted in a separate post further down thread.

[frazzled]

26. In fairness, wealthy families often set up their own foundation

in order to disperse funds (You know, the So-and-So Charitable Trust. Usually, however, it works like an endowment, with only so much drawn down per year for grants so that the principle sum keeps building for the long term.

I haven't looked at the whole list of grants, but I'm a little surprised that it is not more focused (say, health initiatives, arts, and social causes). Chappaqua Fire Dept? That you don't need a foundation for: just write a damn check from your pocket.

[TexasObserver]

35. Something is rotten in this Foundation

From the OP's article it says:

"The Clinton campaign reports donating $10,256,741 to the CFF between 2000 and 2006. During that time, CFF dispersed $2,530,100 in money to other charities and causes."

It boggles the mind to think there is less than one million remaining in the foundation, but only $2.5 mil of the $10.3 mil went to charities and causes. That would imply they either lost or spent over $7 million that is otherwise unaccounted for.

The article indicates one officer was getting over $250,000 per year, which is outrageously high, and far in excess of what IRS guidelines provide. With a foundation of around $10 million in assets, any salary over $100,000 a year is clearly suspect. The median salary per annum for directors or other officers of a foundation this size is around $60,000 per year.

Something is rotten in this Foundation, and when we find out what happened to the $7 million plus, we'll know what it is.

[onenote]

40. it boggles your mind because you aren't thinking

First of all, if you check the thread,you'll see that the claim that the Foundation now has less than a million has been debunked. Truly, thoroughly debunked.

The Foundation at the end of 2006 has $4.3 million. We know that it got another $3 million from the Clintons in 2007 but don't know how much it disbursed. In 2006, it got around $1.58 million (and picked up an addition $112,000 in interest on its residual balance). It gave away 1.25 million (or thereabouts), meaning that the principal balance of the Foundation grew by around $400,000. The $1.25 million in donations went to 50 different charities in amounts ranging from $500 to $100,00

There is nothing unusual or untoward about donating large amounts to a foundation and then having the foundation give the money out over time. The balance that remains each year earns interest for the foundation and is available, along with the principal, for giving in future years. Its a way to set up and fund a foundation so that it can continue to operate after the originators of the foundation are no longer around.

Nothing rotten about it. And if you check the foundations returns (which have been publicly available for years) you can see exactly where the money goes. The foundation has virtually no expenses.

[bhikkhu]

43. Thanks for all the work on this...it answers my questions well

Makes sense, and reflects well on the good intentions and charitable activity of the Clintons.

A thorough and prolonged raking over the coals on talk radio will likely begin Monday, though for entertainment purposes only as they have no minds left to change. Thanks again, and I will recommend this thread where things come up.

[TexasObserver]

57. The author of the article badly misread the 990s.

She didn't know what she was looking at, and as a result, misreported the totals given to the Foundation and the expenses.

I looked at the 990s last night, and have posted further down the thread on the numbers aggregated for the life of the Foundation.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

39. Super cynical! Disgusting.

maybe its good we have a week-end to learn more.

AGH!

[AJH032]

42. so, what?

n/t

[Forkboy]

45. The people who rec'd this are idiots. Carpenter is a RW tool of the worst kind.

People, wake the fuck up and pay attention instead of blindly reccing anything that you think is a negative against the other candidate. You make yourselves look like fucking morons.

[TheDoorbellRang]

48. Well, my popcorn was tasty

I have to admit, I was not familiar with this site. I also admit with a tinge of guilt that I surrendered to my dark side by posting this.

But now that this has been thrown into the piranha vetting bowl of GD-P, the knowledgable tax mavens have debunked this and it's one less thing to argue about. I'm sure it'll never come up in GD-P again.

[Forkboy]

49. "I'm sure it'll never come up in GD-P again."

:rofl: Good one. :)

[TheDoorbellRang]

50. Heh! Do we know this forum or do we know this forum?

:D

[Nine]

52. SCANDAL! Bill and Melinda Gates give their charity to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation! (nt)

[onenote]

53. outlandish!! Took in $95 million last year, only gave out $6.5 million

leaving it with a balance of undonated gifts of $29.6 billion (with a "B").

String 'em up.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

54. why does this have only 12 recommends, when lesser articles are getting more???? why why why?

please read this thread and compare to the other ones
praising Hillary Clinton for her donations to "Charity".

[anonymous171]

55. I thought that was what the donations were for.

Keeping the money in the family, I see.

[TexasObserver]

56. This Foundation is clean. I read their 990s.

From the standpoint of administrative expenses, which would include salaries, the numbers are small. In the aggregate, their admin expenses are minor - under $12,000.

A number of their contributions likely resulted in political opportunity for Senator Clinton, and some of them were for entities which laud the Clinton family name.

Here are some of the contributions which might have produced political benefit to Senator Clinton (aggregated):

$ 25,000 Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund
$225,000 Immanuel Baptist Church
$ 60,000 Clinton Birthplace Foundation
$ 50,000 American Friends of Yitzhak Rabin
$ 25,000 American Friends of Peres Center
$ 50,000 The King Hussein Foundation

[TruthSeeker2008]

59. True charity is giving of one's own resources without expecting anything in return!

True charity is giving of one's own resources without
expecting anything in return! 

Hillary's campaign released the Clintons' tax returns from
2000-2007 revealing that the Clintons earned more than $100
million in that time period and donated $10 million of that to
charity. Good for them ... Sounds great on the face of it,
however this $10 million in cumulative charitable
contributions was to the Clintons' own foundation.  Hmmm ...
okay, but let's look a little closer.

During that time through 2006 this foundation dispersed just
$2.5 million to such (one could argue, self-serving) causes as
the Clinton Birthplace Foundation.  Bill Clinton is, of
course, the foundation's president, Hillary Clinton is the
secretary/treasurer and Chelsea Clinton is a “director” The
2006 tax forms for that foundation list a Gloria Clinton as
CEO and Manager and show she was paid $252,500 for her work
that year.  So for every ten dollars dispersed by the
foundation, one goes to Gloria Clinton, which is not a bad gig
for Ms. Clinton, but raises questions about ulterior motives
and, at the very least, the foundation's officers' gross
negligence of their fiduciary duties.  

Indeed, this hints at a “trickle-down” method of charitable
giving, where the "givers" just might get back more
through tax deductions, personal monuments and favors than
they actually gave.

Now let's jump to Barack Obama, who is prone to paraphrasing
Cain by asserting "We are our brothers' keeper". 
Though this sounds noble, if applied at a personal level
(rather than the imposed and inefficient "giving"
and redistribution of other people's tax dollars), the facts
seem to indicate that these are just more empty words and
platitudes about giving and being charitable, since the Obamas
don't seem to really practice what they preach.  

In the years preceding his seeking high-profile national
office, Obama vied for fellow Democrat Al Gore's infamous
honor of giving less than half of one percent of considerable
income (and wealth) to charity.  Even the Obamas' 2006 return
shows a charitable deduction for a self-serving $13,000
donation to the Congressional Black Caucus (included in the
2006 number shown below). Unfortunately, since it's is illegal
to deduct political contributions as charitable contributions,
the Obamas have had to file an amended return to eliminate
that item as a deduction. 

Even at 4% to 6% of these objectively high incomes, the
Obamas' charitable contributions are fairly pathetic and
especially questionable since even these only began after
running for high-profile political office and no effort
appears to have been made to make up for past “miserliness”. 
All this may remind you of a different set of Bible verses
than those from Genesis chapter 4 paraphrased by Obama: 

Luke
Chapter 21
1 
When he looked up he saw some wealthy people putting their
offerings into the treasury 
2 
and he noticed a poor widow putting in two small coins. 
3 
He said, "I tell you truly, this poor widow put in more
than all the rest; 
4 
for those others have all made offerings from their surplus
wealth, but she, from her poverty, has offered her whole
livelihood."