6 ms·

Not sure I entirely buy this, Charity Watch gives the Clinton Foundation high marks. [1] You might be able to make some arguments for crossing some ethical line

Not sure I entirely buy this, Charity Watch gives the Clinton Foundation high marks. [1] You might be able to make some arguments for crossing some ethical lines, but to say they have done "countless extremely illegal and unethical things" is pushing the conspiratorial line. [1] https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478 https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillar...

swalsh 10y ago
I am so glad the charity is doing something good, but does that justify HOW it got its money [1], and does some good mean the entire organization is built for good? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-...
seizethecheese 10y ago
There's very little investigative reporting on the actual charity activities of the Clinton Foundation. Here's one article: http://fusion.net/story/357169/hillary-clinton-foundation-victims-colombia/ http://fusion.net/story/357169/hillary-clinton-foundation-vi...
suusjhd 10y ago
Just more propaganda, the Clinton foundation is an illegal slush fund. http://charlesortel.com http://charlesortel.com http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/22/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizer-confirms-clinton-foundation-gives-only-six-percent-charity/ http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/22/clinton-cash-autho...
whamlastxmas 10y ago
That website is frankly misleading. Their classifications of "overhead" are ridiculous. Look at the actual filing from the Clinton Foundation itself: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_2014.pdf https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinto... Page 18 and 19. Out of a budget of $217 million, they spent $34 million on direct program expenditures. That's about 16%, not 88% as your link would lead us to believe. Additionally, what is this money spent on? Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Presidential Center, Clinton Development Initiative, Clinton Health Matters Initiative, Clinton Giustra Sustaninable Growth Initiative A little self-serving, don't you think? And what percentage of the money going to those initiatives do you think are spent on directly charitable causes? No one should be under the illusion that the Clinton Foundation is a charity. It isn't. It's a slush fund for political purposes. Look at how mismanaged the billions of dollars for Haiti has been if you want to see how charitable the Clintons are (spoiler: nearly none of the money has actually been spent on Haiti, and virtually none of it on direct relief).
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Why are you excluding the salaries and benefits paid to people working on programs and services? Paying someone to do something like provide training or administer vaccines is reasonable to describe as a program and service expense, it's not overhead. It's easy to imagine situations where that money is not being spent 100% efficiently, but it also seems unlikely that it is being spent perfectly inefficiently.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    It's really a pointless argument, because the overhead on a non-charitable non-profit doesn't really matter. But you do have a point when looking at traditional charities.
- cbr 10y ago
  If you read Dylan Matthews' investigation [1] a major takeaway is that the foundation's impact comes primarily from influencing corporations and governments. For example, to make AIDS drugs cheaper they convinced the manufacturers to accept much lower prices in exchange for much larger volume, and they convinced governments to make very large orders. If the foundation were trying to fight AIDS by directly funding the distribution of treatments the numbers in the report would be pretty bad, but that's not the picture here. [1] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/12893444/clinton-foundation-effectiveness http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/12893444/cl...
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    The headline quote being "The key question on the Clinton Foundation is whether it saved lives. The answer is clearly yes." is laughable. The Clintons do not give a flying fuck about saving lives. What has the cost of life been in the Middle East due to the US invasion that HRC voted for and wants to perpetuate? Literally tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of women and children, depending on which watchdog reports you believe. HRC is the same woman that literally laughed and bragged on a television interview about killing Gaddafi. As shitty as he was, he was a real person. A living human, and she laughs about killing him. It's fine to have pride in protecting your country, but killing someone (much less a head of state) should never be a laughing matter.

swalsh 10y ago

I am so glad the charity is doing something good, but does that justify HOW it got its money [1], and does some good mean the entire organization is built for good? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-...

seizethecheese 10y ago

There's very little investigative reporting on the actual charity activities of the Clinton Foundation. Here's one article: http://fusion.net/story/357169/hillary-clinton-foundation-victims-colombia/ http://fusion.net/story/357169/hillary-clinton-foundation-vi...

suusjhd 10y ago

Just more propaganda, the Clinton foundation is an illegal slush fund. http://charlesortel.com http://charlesortel.com http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/22/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizer-confirms-clinton-foundation-gives-only-six-percent-charity/ http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/22/clinton-cash-autho...

whamlastxmas 10y ago

That website is frankly misleading. Their classifications of "overhead" are ridiculous. Look at the actual filing from the Clinton Foundation itself: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_2014.pdf https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinto... Page 18 and 19. Out of a budget of $217 million, they spent $34 million on direct program expenditures. That's about 16%, not 88% as your link would lead us to believe. Additionally, what is this money spent on? Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Presidential Center, Clinton Development Initiative, Clinton Health Matters Initiative, Clinton Giustra Sustaninable Growth Initiative A little self-serving, don't you think? And what percentage of the money going to those initiatives do you think are spent on directly charitable causes? No one should be under the illusion that the Clinton Foundation is a charity. It isn't. It's a slush fund for political purposes. Look at how mismanaged the billions of dollars for Haiti has been if you want to see how charitable the Clintons are (spoiler: nearly none of the money has actually been spent on Haiti, and virtually none of it on direct relief).

maxerickson 10y ago
Why are you excluding the salaries and benefits paid to people working on programs and services? Paying someone to do something like provide training or administer vaccines is reasonable to describe as a program and service expense, it's not overhead. It's easy to imagine situations where that money is not being spent 100% efficiently, but it also seems unlikely that it is being spent perfectly inefficiently.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  It's really a pointless argument, because the overhead on a non-charitable non-profit doesn't really matter. But you do have a point when looking at traditional charities.
cbr 10y ago
If you read Dylan Matthews' investigation [1] a major takeaway is that the foundation's impact comes primarily from influencing corporations and governments. For example, to make AIDS drugs cheaper they convinced the manufacturers to accept much lower prices in exchange for much larger volume, and they convinced governments to make very large orders. If the foundation were trying to fight AIDS by directly funding the distribution of treatments the numbers in the report would be pretty bad, but that's not the picture here. [1] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/12893444/clinton-foundation-effectiveness http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/12893444/cl...
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  The headline quote being "The key question on the Clinton Foundation is whether it saved lives. The answer is clearly yes." is laughable. The Clintons do not give a flying fuck about saving lives. What has the cost of life been in the Middle East due to the US invasion that HRC voted for and wants to perpetuate? Literally tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of women and children, depending on which watchdog reports you believe. HRC is the same woman that literally laughed and bragged on a television interview about killing Gaddafi. As shitty as he was, he was a real person. A living human, and she laughs about killing him. It's fine to have pride in protecting your country, but killing someone (much less a head of state) should never be a laughing matter.