“Data no lie: Clinton foundation was ‘slush fund’ if Hillary was a Senator/Secretary/Pres candidate. Trump structure helped human being in require with 100% to charities, but
realDonaldTrump voluntarily closeup of the door his down. Yet who is the sleazy NY AG suing?!”— trump card 2020 project manager Brad Parscale, in a tweet, June 14, 2018
The brand-new York lawyer general’s lawsuit against the trump Foundation, alleging “persistently illegal conduct,” triggered this tweet through the manager of the president’s reelection campaign.
You are watching: How much of clinton foundation goes to charity
The tweet to be accompanied by a chart the was headlined “Real Charity vs. ‘Slush Fund.’ ” The chart claimed that the Donald J. Trump structure gave “100%” to charities, through “0.0%” expenses, compared with only 6.4 percent to charities because that the Clinton structure — and also 93.6 percent in expenses, consisting of administration, travel, salaries and bonuses.
First the all, despite both organizations have the word “foundation” in their names, they are various kinds of entities.
The Trump foundation was a relatively small personal family foundation that made specific contributions. The Clinton Foundation, through contrast, is a big public charity; the does no dole out grants but instead allocates the donations it raises directly to mentioned charitable activities, together as cultivating economic development and global health. For this reason it’s currently a matter of apples and also oranges when making simplistic comparisons about expenses.
Meanwhile, the Trump structure did have some expenses — $56,163 between 2006 and also 2016, basically all ($56,000) in accounting fees, follow to its tax filings. That functions out to around 0.43 percent the the $12.7 million in outgoing donations in that period. That’s pretty good, however it’s not 0.0 percent. Offered the foundation’s legit travails, one might argue that it should have actually spent more than $163 in legal fees in the period.
Moreover, to claim that the structure gave “100%” come charities is just not true, uneven one considers the president self to it is in a charity.
As our partner David Fahrenthold first reported in his Pulitzer Prize-winning report on the trump Foundation, trump card did not donate any type of money to the foundation between 2008 and 2015 and most of its money was not actually his. By law, trumped wasn’t permitted to buy points for himself utilizing the charity’s money, also if he was buying them from nonprofit groups.
But trump twice used the charity’s money to work out legal disputes that involved his for-profit businesses, the brand-new York lawyer general alleged. He also engaged in various other instances the self-dealing, such together paying $10,000 come buy a portrait that Trump the was discovered hanging in among his golf resorts. The structure also donated $25,000 come a Florida political team aiding the reelection initiative of state Attorney basic Pam Bondi (R) — and also was provided to advantage his presidential campaign, the sue said.
Parscale’s chart lists together a resource a 2015 brand-new York Post short article that was titled “Charity watchdog: Clinton structure a ‘slush fund.’” The article was pegged to the announcement the Charity Navigator, which prices nonprofits, made decision to placed the Clinton foundation on that “watch list.” The team took the action after media reports raised troubling questions around the running of the foundation and the structure spun off part entities and later bought some, follow to a 2015 interview v our colleagues at FactCheck.org.
Charity Navigator stated that the Clinton foundation had an “atypical service model” and also that “our removal of The Clinton structure from our site is no a condemnation no one an endorsement of this charity.”
But the company did not speak to the Clinton structure a “slush fund.” That come from a quote in the article offered by invoice Allison, at the moment a an elderly fellow in ~ the sunshine Foundation.
Allison told The reality Checker he was referring to media coverage, in particular a Washington short article report the revealed the Bill Clinton to be paid at least $26 million in speak fees through companies and also organizations that are also major donors come the foundation. A memo written by a height Clinton aide, leaked through WikiLeaks in 2016, further exposed the inner operations of “Bill Clinton Inc.,” in i beg your pardon donors to the Clinton structure were pressed to provide personal income come the former president.
“It was very unusual come me and ethically challenged,” Allison said, adding the he stood by the quote. Yet he provided that that made the “slush-fund” comment in the course of a 20-minute conversation. “What was robbed from the context of the quote is that i did say that the Clinton foundation did great work,” the said.
In any type of case, through the finish of 2015, Charity Navigator removed the Clinton foundation from its clock list. The organization suggested that tax info made accessible by the Clinton Foundation, including four years of taxation returns amended by the organization, as well as a windy memo it is registered by the group, met Charity Navigator’s requirements for removal.
In 2016, Charity Navigator began listing the Clinton foundation as a “low concern” charity, v a four-star rating, its greatest rating. The Clinton structure currently has actually a score that 93.91 out of 100 for finances, accountability and transparency.
Meanwhile, Charity Navigator in 2016 approve a “high concern” advisory ~ above the Trump foundation after news reports that the brand-new York attorney general would inspection it and also Trump would seek to close it.
The new York write-up report claimed that the Clinton foundation took $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent simply $9 million on direct aid, based on 2013 taxation filings. However as we explained, the is a windy charity. The ratio of 6.4 percent toward charities and 93.6 percent towards expenses, said by the tax kind and recurring in the chart, is based upon a misreading that the tax files filed by the foundation.
By contrast, the American institute of Philanthropy’s CharityWatch provides the Clinton foundation an “A” rating, the second-highest efficiency rating, which is based upon the percent of full expenses a charity spent on its programs in the year analyzed and also the cost to progressive $100.
For 2016, according to taxes documents and audited gaue won statements, the Clinton structure spent 88 percent that its cash budget on programs, contrasted to 12 percent top top overhead, such as fundraising, management and also expenses. The organization also calculated that it costs the Clinton structure only $2 because that every $100 the raises.
In other words, the truth is nearly the opposite of what Parscale portrays in his chart. Indeed, CharityWatch contains the Clinton structure on its perform of top-rated charities.
(CharityWatch mostly rates windy charities, and also some social welfare and veterans establishments that extensively solicit the general public for donations, so it does not price the trumped Foundation.)
Here’s an instance of where data deserve to lie, if presented in a misleading fashion. Parscale’s graph compares apples and also oranges — and then offers an expense-charity proportion for the Clinton structure that is essentially backward. One might raise legit questions about the Clinton foundation without resorting come phony mathematics — or skip the well-documented problems with the running of the trump Foundation. Parscale earns 4 Pinocchios.
See more: How Much Money Does Clinton Have, Bill Clinton Net Worth
“Data no lie: Clinton foundation was ‘slush fund’ while Hillary was a Senator/Secretary/Pres candidate. Trump foundation helped people in need with 100% come charities, however
Today’s HeadlinesThe most important news story of the day, curated by post editors and delivered every morning.