Trump: Shut down the Clinton Foundation

Ditch said:
Post a list of those programs.
More...


http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation,[4]and called during 2013–15 the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation[5]) is anonprofit corporation under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code. It was established by former President of the United States Bill Clinton with the stated mission to "strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence." The Foundation focuses on improving global health and wellness, increasing opportunity for women and girls, reducing childhood obesity and preventable diseases, creating economic opportunity and growth, and helping communities address the effects of climate change. The Foundation works principally through partnerships with like-minded individuals, organizations, corporations, and governments, often serving as an incubator for new policies and programs. Its offices are located in New York City and Little Rock, Arkansas.

The Clinton Foundation encompasses a number of different efforts and entities, including the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI, spun off into a separate but related organization in 2010), the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI, split off after 2009 but reintegrated after 2013), Clinton Global Initiative University (CGI U), the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), the Clinton Development Initiative (CDI), the Clinton Economic Opportunity Initiative, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, the Clinton Health Matters Initiative (CHMI), the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, and the No Ceilings Project.

Through 2016 the foundation had raised an estimated $2 billion from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups and individuals,"[3] and the acceptance of funds from wealthy donors has been controversial at times.[3][6] The foundation "has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."[3]

Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead keeps most of its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs.[7]Because of this unusual structure for a foundation, Charity Navigator, a charity watchdog, has said it does not have a methodology to rate the Clinton Foundation.[7]Consequently, they added the foundation to their charity "watch list" in April 2015; it was removed from the "watch list" in December 2015 after the charity posted amended tax returns and a public memo on its website.[8] A different charity monitor, CharityWatch, says that 88% of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2016.[9]
 
It seems like a new media story about the financial entanglements of the Clinton Foundation arrives on a daily basis. And with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign now in full swing, this trend seems unlikely to end in the near future.

The proliferation of reports about the organization’s finances makes it increasingly difficult to determine which stories carry real weight and which are better viewed as partisan posturing. I offer three tips for sorting it out.

Do not expect the Clinton Foundation to behave like a private foundation.

Although it has "foundation" in its name, the Clinton Foundation is actually a public charity. In practical terms, this means both that it relies heavily on donations from the public and that it achieves its mission primarily by using those donations to conduct direct charitable activities, as opposed to providing grants from an endowment.

Failure to understand the difference led to the widespread claim (covered by the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and others) that only a small portion of Clinton Foundation spending goes toward charity. While measuring charitable endeavors by the amount of grants awarded may be appropriate for many private foundations, it is not for an organization that acts as a direct service provider like the Clinton Foundation.

Pay attention to the foundation’s audited financial statements, not its Form 990.

This is important because audited financials reflect the consolidated activities of all related entities, as required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Clinton Foundation’s most recent audited financials report on the combined activities of the foundation and its affiliated charity, the Clinton Health Access Initiative. By contrast, the Form 990 tax filings follow each entity separately. The Clinton Foundation’s legal composition has changed over time — for example, the Clinton Global Initiative was spun off during the years Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

Thus the activities covered by the foundation’s stand-alone tax filings are inherently different across the years, whereas the consolidated entity, which continued to include the Clinton Global Initiative even when it filed separate tax forms, has remained stable.

Some news reports reflect a misunderstanding about this difference, as was the case when the Federalist reported that the Clinton Foundation’s claim of spending 88 percent of its expenses on programs was "demonstrably false" since its tax forms showed that figure was only 80 percent. But the 80 percent reflects spending by the parent entity in isolation, while the 88 percent reflects spending by all of the related groups.

The confusion worsens when reporting relies on a mix of tax forms and consolidated financials. The Federalist also claimed the Clinton Foundation devoted substantial resources to distributing pharmaceuticals in 2008 and 2009, but those activities became "virtually nonexistent" by 2011.

This conclusion mixed apples and oranges, however, because it relied on data from consolidated activities in 2008 and 2009 but from tax forms for 2011 through 2013. Since the Clinton Health Access Initiative is the source of most such pharmaceutical distribution but files a separate tax form, finding this contrast was entirely predictable. A more appropriate apples-to-apples comparison using consolidated financials throughout reveals that pharmaceutical distribution has indeed waned but not to the extent alleged by the Federalist.

Compare financial information to a peer organization for context.

Looking at the Clinton Foundation’s financial activities in a vacuum makes it difficult to develop a sense of what is ordinary and what is truly unusual. A comparison to peer organizations provides important context. Though the Clinton Foundation is clearly unique, with a former president as its public face, aggressive worldwide fundraising, and a global agenda of public-private partnerships, this shouldn’t stop people from making this effort. In my book, the best point of comparison is the Carter Center, founded by President Jimmy Carter. The similarities both in terms of the founder’s public persona and the organization’s worldwide reach make it a natural benchmark.

A look at the Carter Center not only shows why criticizing the Clinton Foundation’s low grant payouts is problematic but it also can give a sense of how reasonable other expenses are. Such a comparison reveals that it is not grant behavior that sticks out but rather the rise in the Clinton Foundation’s payroll costs in recent years.

These suggestions apply to the Clinton Foundation’s defenders as well as its critics. Take, for example, an opinion piece in Forbes calling the foundation a trailblazer because it decided to voluntarily disclose its donors. While it is true that the foundation is among a small group of public charities that have taken this step, it is also not a typical public charity. Again, appropriate benchmarking is in order. While the Clinton Foundation first began disclosing donors in 2008 (after years of pressure), the Carter Center has long had this policy.

These three tips are not guaranteed to fully separate the wheat from the chaff in reports about Clinton Foundation finances. But an ability to spot these pitfalls can help us have a more nuanced view of the organization upon which to judge the propriety of both the foundation and the family that runs it.


https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Opinion-How-to-Understand-the/230745
 
der_kommissar said:
In other words, you are denying that you were banned for cyber stalking?
More...
Wasn't stalking. Just didn't let a fool get away with foolishness in a supposed "journal" thread, remember? And he got a lot worse from others since then who hadn't been banned; it just wasn't as fashionable when I took him to task. Also, if you will recall, he continually kept trashing other people's threads in the trading forums with his gibberish. At the very least, then, his own "journal" should have been held to account, wouldn't you agree? I only ran into trouble with Paul Blart in that infamous "journal" thread and nowhere else, and only when the "journalist" tried to get away with bullshit, so that would hardly qualify as "stalking." Are you perhaps suddenly and tacitly defending him now because it suits your purposes here in P&R? Because that would say a lot.
 
Last edited:
der_kommissar said:
Kinda like you supporting anything and everything with regards to the Democratic party?
More...
Take a moment to read what you quoted. Because my support for Democratic party ideals is neither sudden (as in turning on a dime) nor tacit. So I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you?
 
Frederick Foresight said:
Take a moment to read what you quoted. Because my support for Democratic party ideals is neither sudden (as in turning on a dime) nor tacit. So I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you?
More...

"ideals"...In other words, when your party acts against those ideals, you simply turn a blind eye...
 
futurecurrents said:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation,[4]and called during 2013–15 the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation[5]) is anonprofit corporation under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code. It was established by former President of the United States Bill Clinton with the stated mission to "strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence." The Foundation focuses on improving global health and wellness, increasing opportunity for women and girls, reducing childhood obesity and preventable diseases, creating economic opportunity and growth, and helping communities address the effects of climate change. The Foundation works principally through partnerships with like-minded individuals, organizations, corporations, and governments, often serving as an incubator for new policies and programs. Its offices are located in New York City and Little Rock, Arkansas.

The Clinton Foundation encompasses a number of different efforts and entities, including the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI, spun off into a separate but related organization in 2010), the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI, split off after 2009 but reintegrated after 2013), Clinton Global Initiative University (CGI U), the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), the Clinton Development Initiative (CDI), the Clinton Economic Opportunity Initiative, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, the Clinton Health Matters Initiative (CHMI), the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, and the No Ceilings Project.

Through 2016 the foundation had raised an estimated $2 billion from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups and individuals,"[3] and the acceptance of funds from wealthy donors has been controversial at times.[3][6] The foundation "has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."[3]

Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead keeps most of its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs.[7]Because of this unusual structure for a foundation, Charity Navigator, a charity watchdog, has said it does not have a methodology to rate the Clinton Foundation.[7]Consequently, they added the foundation to their charity "watch list" in April 2015; it was removed from the "watch list" in December 2015 after the charity posted amended tax returns and a public memo on its website.[8] A different charity monitor, CharityWatch, says that 88% of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2016.[9]
More...

Again, where's that list of "humanitarian programs"? So far it remains undisclosed what these programs encompass. BTW, quite hilarious that 2 "comrades" like this piece of useless drivel.:p The level of content of you lot is really getting pathetic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top