3 ms·

...that spent significantly more money on luxury travel costs than it did on charitable grants. [1] [1] http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014

...that spent significantly more money on luxury travel costs than it did on charitable grants. [1] [1] http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-3115...

rhcom2 9y ago
93.91/100 from Charity Navigator, spending 86.9% on programs and services.
aaronbrethorst 9y ago
Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation "Luxury" sounds like editorializing given the data you provide to back up your claim, which simply lists travel as being a $7.8mm cost and grants as a $4.1mm cost (page 10 of your linked PDF).
- malchow 9y ago
  "On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation. In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over..." [1] [1] https://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/ https://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-found... So of $140M raised tax-free in 2013, half was spent keeping the operation going that very year.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Aside from the editorializing about "luxury", that's because it is a direct-action charity, not an pass-through charity that gives grants to other charities while skimming off the top for administrative expenses. So, yes, it spends more on travel (and lots of other things) than on charitable grants, because grants aren't the mechanism by which it's charitable purpose is realized.

rhcom2 9y ago

93.91/100 from Charity Navigator, spending 86.9% on programs and services.

aaronbrethorst 9y ago

Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation "Luxury" sounds like editorializing given the data you provide to back up your claim, which simply lists travel as being a $7.8mm cost and grants as a $4.1mm cost (page 10 of your linked PDF).

malchow 9y ago
"On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation. In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over..." [1] [1] https://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/ https://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-found... So of $140M raised tax-free in 2013, half was spent keeping the operation going that very year.

dragonwriter 9y ago

Aside from the editorializing about "luxury", that's because it is a direct-action charity, not an pass-through charity that gives grants to other charities while skimming off the top for administrative expenses. So, yes, it spends more on travel (and lots of other things) than on charitable grants, because grants aren't the mechanism by which it's charitable purpose is realized.