5.7 Percent Of Clinton Foundation Budget Actually Went To Charity

Well, yes, we all know what this "foundation" is set up for and here are some numbers. Really big, big numbers. The IRS launched an investigation into the Clinton Foundation but as we all know, they will most probably never "prosecute".

Read more: dailycaller.com...


dailycaller.com...

Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”

The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.

That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.

Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”

This....this...this is Deplorable!!!

So they spent over $90 million dollars to give away $5 million.
$85 million wasted.
That sounds just like the kind of people I want running the country.

The “other expenses” is where the cream is.

But the Clinton's left the White House in debt. They're entitled. DUH!

Didn't even try to make it look legit. Just sloppy.

a reply to: infolurker

Holy Cats! I've got to have a serious conversation with my attorney about setting up a foundation.

I had no idea. No idea that you could get away with a percentage that low. In all of the charitable organizations with which I'm affiliated, that figure is closer to the operating expenses. Ten to fifteen percent is acceptable. Granted, none of the charity organizations with which I'm familiar are world-wide in scope. We serve water, lemonade, sweet tea and coffee at our fundraisers.


How many people do they employ?

That is about par for the course. Many charities are that way, burn up way more money in salaries and wages than in what they give to the needy. It seems our government does not care, they are corrupt when it comes to this. They pick on tiny charities that are just starting out and discourage those charities from going farther. Some of those new charities are good, some are scams too.

The people working for this charity may be relatives of big donors or powerful people or just friends of the Clinton family. Knowing Bills past way with women, there may be a few on the payroll for his personal needs.

The IRS would have to prove "intent"
Peace y'all

originally posted by: Bluntone22
So they spent over $90 million dollars to give away $5 million.
$85 million wasted.
That sounds just like the kind of people I want running the country.

If people are indeed creatures of habit, and resist change--
our choice for more of the same brand of frugality is clear.
To the OP.. this is not surprising, when most of the globalists'
pet charities are right on par with about 90-10%: the latter
properly disbursed. The Red Cross, sadly is one of them...

Many charity's operate the same check out kids wish foundation. Not saying it is right they should be shut down if the use more than a third raised for administration and expenses.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
So they spent over $90 million dollars to give away $5 million.
$85 million wasted.
That sounds just like the kind of people I want running the country.

These kinds of people have been running the country for quite some time now over several generations and you wait for this little tidbit to be concerned ?...that makes sense

As others have said, this is very common in the sector.

A lot of charities manage to run at a loss too, never giving anything to the actual targets of the charity.

It's one of the main reasons why I don't donate to charities anymore unless they are very up front and clear about the percentage of income they spend on running costs vs actually going to the people in need.

Should be law actually. Every charity advert or poster should be required to state that percentage clearly.

I wonder if it is a tax free charity. Who is this charity actually for anyway? The Clinton's?

Tax evasion 101: Create a "Charity" in which you "hire" all your political allies and give them high salaries for doing nearly nothing, while also obtaining the tax-exempt status of a non-profit organization - money laundering anyone? Honestly, 5.7% charitable donations is higher than I would have expected.

Trump more than likely had similar schemes for maximizing profit.

a reply to: infolurker

That is not true, there is another thread. The percent, which is usually given as 6% originated with a misleading claim by Carly Fiorina. The Clinton Foundation spends about 83% on programs it runs and gives 6% to other entities. Their operating costs are 10-12%.

Charitywatch.org Clinton Foundation You will see they have an A rating.

Factcheck.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.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I wonder if it is a tax free charity. Who is this charity actually for anyway? The Clinton's?

It is a public charity, or operating foundation. It's purpose is to implement it's own programs, mainly. Not to raise money for other groups.

Here is the consolidated audit for 2012 and 2013

warning: .PDF

Consolidated Audit

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I wonder if it is a tax free charity. Who is this charity actually for anyway? The Clinton's?

It is.

It is a 501C3, same as a church.

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.

Clintonfoundation.org