Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not left. Nor are quite a number of Republicans who are really, really unhappy about their candidate.

Isn't universal child care sort of lefty?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: buster2010
Anyone that thinks Trump isn't a politician is an idiot. He has run for office multiple times.

So the left are idiots... check

So the left is saying he isn't a politician? What party does Trump represent again?

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: buster2010
Anyone that thinks Trump isn't a politician is an idiot. He has run for office multiple times.

So the left are idiots... check

So the left is saying he isn't a politician? What party does Trump represent again?

I personally believe had the political system in the USA been different then Trump would be running as a independant, he knows full well it would be impossible to win from that position as it stands hence we see what see today.. Just my 2pc

Hillary has a long career in politics, Trump does not... So that is the Hillary v Trump narrative covered..

Now the Clinton Foundation "seems" to be very questionable and personally I think it is very blatant that it is setup as a type of front for whatever dealings a person in her position needs it for. You do not need a fantastic imagination to see how such a setup such as this can be advantageous to someone that wishes to further their political and financial circumstances..


RA

a reply to: slider1982
Ah. Experienced politician vs newbie politician.
Again, you should have lead with that. Modifying your stance creates the impression that you may not know much about that of which you speak.

For every dollar I spend, the state of Indiana gets 7 cents.
For every dollar the Clinton foundation gets, it donates less than 6 cents.
Sounds like somebody is making a hell of a profit at this non profit.

Yeah, let's put that bunch in charge of the country. I bet they can come up with many more ways to filter money into their pockets. But keep saying trumps all about the money.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Sounds like somebody is making a hell of a profit at this non profit.

If you consider a high salary a profit, you are correct. It is mostly required that the corporation show no profit.
How much is Trump paid as CEO of his various enterprises? Is it illegal?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bluntone22

Sounds like somebody is making a hell of a profit at this non profit.

If you consider a high salary a profit, you are correct. It is mostly required that the corporation show no profit.
How much is Trump paid as CEO of his various enterprises? Is it illegal?

You're really going to compare a private owned company with a charity?

a reply to: Bluntone22
Yes.

Both are corporations. The only difference is that one is allowed (for tax purposes) to show a profit on the books and the other is not.

Like it or not, them are the facts. How much, do you suppose Mr. Swaggert gets paid?

a reply to: Phage


Yes, taxes are the only difference..lol

a reply to: Bluntone22
So, you agree that it is not illegal for the administrators of the corporation to receive high salaries?

a reply to: Phage

The board of a nonprofit must also operate the entity within the established mission statement. Going outside that mission statement can result in a review of and or loss of a tax exempt status (501C3).

In addition to taxes and the above -

Wiki - 501C3

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated.[57][58] An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.[59] However, in the wake of Citizen's United V. FEC, which held, among other things, that corporations had first-amendment rights, this rule has been criticized as being in violation of the first-amendment freedom of speech clause. It has therefore been predicted that the "Political Activity" rule will soon be formally challenged before the United States Supreme Court.[60]
Elections

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[61] The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates on this prohibition:[62]

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Lobbying

In contrast to the prohibition on political campaign interventions by all section 501(c)(3) organizations, public charities (but not private foundations) may conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that "No substantial part..." of a public charity's activities can go to lobbying, charities with large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the "expenditure" test), or more (under the "substantial part" test) per year on lobbying.[63]
Conable election

The Internal Revenue Service has never defined the term "substantial part" with respect to lobbying.[64]

In order to establish a safe harbor for the "substantial part" test, the United States Congress enacted §501(h), called the Conable election after its author, Representative Barber Conable. The section establishes limits based on operating budget that a charity can use to determine if it meets the substantial test. This changes the prohibition against direct intervention in partisan contests only for lobbying. The organization is now presumed in compliance with the substantiality test if they work within the limits. The Conable election requires a charity to file a declaration with the IRS and file a functional distribution of funds spreadsheet with their Form 990. IRS form 5768 is required to make the Conable election.[65]

the above sections are one of the main reasons there was a MOA with Obama and why donors getting meetings is such a massive issue.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Yes.
And I know that Trump wants to repeal much of that. Especially the part about political contributions and such. For churches.

originally posted by: buster2010
So how much of that money was spent bribing DA's so they would drop their investigations?

Lynch musta cost an arm and a leg.

Comey cost another arm and leg.

I wonder who's walking around with no legs?

Oh puleeze, it's a joke. (at least i didn't go for Art)

Speaking of jokes...how bout that 6%, eh?

a reply to: Xcathdra

The "only 6% in grants" would be a problem if they were a pass-through foundation. They are not. They are an Operational Foundation which runs its own charitable programs that require funding. Here is the IRS document and the distinction, which your source somehow managed to overlook:

In the Tax Reform Act of 1969, Congress not only created a number of distinctions between public charities and private foundations, it also introduced the subclassification private "operating foundation". A private operating foundation is a foundation that enjoys certain advantages available to public charities, but in all other respects is treated as a private foundation.

These organizations are called private operating foundations because they are private foundations that actively conduct their own charitable, educational, or other exempt programs and activities. Examples of operating foundations include museums, zoos, research facilities, libraries, etc. In contrast, a private foundation that principally provides grants to other entities or to individuals for charitable or other exempt purposes would not qualify as an operating foundation, and instead would be called a "nonoperating foundation".

IRS Doc


IRS LINK - Operational Foundation - Further Definitions (Current Website Info)

There may be problems with the Clinton Foundation, especially in regards to conflict of interest, but the "misapprehension" (or outright lies) by right-wing media regarding the IRS status and financial structure of the Clinton Foundation is NOT one of them.

- AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

The evidence from the IRS would suggest otherwise.

Daily Caller: Clinton Foundation Lied to the IRS About Tax-Exempt Status

The Clinton Foundation misrepresented itself to the IRS in the years after it was first granted tax-exempt status in 1997, according to a new report.

An investigation by The Daily Caller reveals Clinton officials initially registered the foundation as an organization that would construct and maintain the Clinton Library after President Bill Clinton's second term was complete.

However, the documents show that the foundation continued to be registered as such even as it grew into an international charity that allegedly conducted a pay-to-play scheme involving high-dollar donors, favors, and access to the Clintons.

A 1997 letter from the IRS obtained by The Daily Caller showed the Clinton Foundation was granted tax-exempt status. But the organization was required to tell the government if it were to "change your sources of support, your purposes, character or method of operation … so we can consider the effect of the change on your exempt status and foundation status."

The Clinton Climate charity is defined as a pass through by a former top board member. With all the charities / initiatives popping up and going away it looks more and more like a shell game.

Isn't The Daily Caller part of the MSM?

Don't we distrust the MSM here at ATS?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra
Yes.
And I know that Trump wants to repeal much of that. Especially the part about political contributions and such. For churches.

Well then its a good thing the President can't repeal anything as that power resides with Congress. I guess he could always go rogue like Obama and rule by secrecy and executive orders.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That 6% figure is a myth, first pushed by Carly Fiorina. It is true that most charitable work is performed 'in house', the 6% figure is what is donated to other entities.

Fact Check,org- Fiorina Claims

“I am not the expert on what portion of the Clinton Foundation activities are truly charitable,” Vince Stehle, executive director of Media Impact Funders and a board member of the Center for Effective Philanthropy told us via email. “But I can say that it is not appropriate to simply calculate that based on what portion goes out in grants. Certainly all types of foundations are able to engage in direct charitable activities in any event.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she told us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation because the foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health Access Initiative) and then later brought some, like the Clinton Global Initiative, back into the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a charity’s performance over time, she said, and those spin-offs could result in a skewed picture using its analysis model. If the foundation maintains its current structure for several years, she said, Charity Navigator will be able to rate it again.The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns about the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. Further, Minuitti said citing only the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum total spent on charity by the foundation — as Willis and Fiorina did — is inaccurate.

Charity Watch- Clinton Foundation

The overhead was about 12%.

Quoting this 6% number is like passing around a Facebook meme.

a reply to: reldra

So the IRS tax records in the article are wrong?