“Data no lie: Clinton structure was ‘slush fund’ if Hillary was a Senator/Secretary/Pres candidate. Trump structure helped civilization in require with 100% to charities, yet
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 attorney general’s lawsuit versus the trump Foundation, alleging “persistently illegal conduct,” prompted this tweet through the manager of the president’s reelection campaign.
You are watching: Clinton foundation percentage used for charity
The tweet to be accompanied by a chart the was headlined “Real Charity vs. ‘Slush Fund.’ ” The chart declared that the Donald J. Trump structure gave “100%” to charities, v “0.0%” expenses, compared with only 6.4 percent to charities for the Clinton structure — and 93.6 percent in expenses, consisting of administration, travel, salaries and also bonuses.
First the all, despite both organizations have the indigenous “foundation” in their names, lock are different kinds the entities.
The Trump foundation was a reasonably small exclusive family structure that made specific contributions. The Clinton Foundation, through contrast, is a large public charity; the does not dole the end grants but instead allocates the donations it raises directly to mentioned charitable activities, such as fostering economic breakthrough and worldwide health. So it’s already a issue of apples and oranges once making simplistic comparisons around expenses.
Meanwhile, the Trump structure did have some costs — $56,163 between 2006 and 2016, virtually all ($56,000) in bookkeeping fees, follow to its tax filings. That works out to about 0.43 percent that the $12.7 million in outgoing donations in that period. That’s pretty good, however it’s no 0.0 percent. Provided the foundation’s legitimate travails, one could argue the it should have actually spent more than $163 in legal fees in that period.
Moreover, to insurance claim that the structure gave “100%” to charities is merely 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 trumped Foundation, trumped did not donate any type of money to the structure between 2008 and also 2015 and also most that its money was no actually his. By law, trump card wasn’t allowed to buy things for himself utilizing the charity’s money, even if he to be buying lock from nonprofit groups.
But trump card twice offered the charity’s money to settle legal disputes that associated his for-profit businesses, the new York attorney general alleged. He additionally engaged in other instances the self-dealing, such together paying $10,000 to buy a portrait that Trump the was uncovered hanging in one of his golf resorts. The structure also donated $25,000 to a Florida political group aiding the reelection effort of state Attorney general Pam Bondi (R) — and also was provided to benefit his presidential campaign, the sue said.
Parscale’s chart lists as a source a 2015 new York Post post that was title “Charity watchdog: Clinton structure a ‘slush fund.’” The post was pegged to the announcement the Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, made decision to put the Clinton foundation on that is “watch list.” The group took the action after media reports elevated troubling questions around the to run of the structure and the foundation spun off part entities and also later to buy some, follow to a 2015 interview through our partner at FactCheck.org.
Charity Navigator claimed that the Clinton foundation had an “atypical service model” and that “our removal of The Clinton foundation from our website is no a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity.”
But the company did not call the Clinton foundation a “slush fund.” That come from a quote in the article offered by bill Allison, at the time a an elderly fellow in ~ the sunshine Foundation.
Allison told The truth Checker he was referring to media coverage, in certain a Washington short article report the revealed the Bill Clinton to be paid at the very least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and also organizations that are also major donors come the foundation. A memo composed by a height Clinton aide, leaked by WikiLeaks in 2016, further exposed the inner operations of “Bill Clinton Inc.,” in i m sorry donors to the Clinton foundation were pressed to provide personal income to the previous president.
“It was very unusual come me and also ethically challenged,” Allison said, adding the he was standing by the quote. However he noted that the made the “slush-fund” comment in the course of a 20-minute conversation. “What was robbed from the paper definition of the quote is that ns did say that the Clinton foundation did good work,” the said.
In any kind of case, by the end of 2015, Charity Navigator eliminated the Clinton foundation from its watch list. The organization indicated that tax information made available by the Clinton Foundation, including 4 years of tax returns amended by the organization, and a publicly memo submitted by the group, met Charity Navigator’s needs 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 the 93.91 the end of 100 because that finances, accountability and also transparency.
Meanwhile, Charity Navigator in 2016 approve a “high concern” advisory on the Trump structure after news reports the the brand-new York attorney basic would inspection it and Trump would seek to close it.
The brand-new York post report asserted that the Clinton structure took $140 million in grants and also pledges in 2013 however spent simply $9 million on straight aid, based on 2013 taxation filings. However as we explained, it is a public charity. The proportion of 6.4 percent toward charities and also 93.6 percent toward expenses, said by the tax kind and repetitive in the chart, is based upon a misreading the the tax documents filed through the foundation.
By contrast, the American academy of Philanthropy’s CharityWatch offers the Clinton foundation an “A” rating, its second-highest effectiveness rating, which is based upon the percent of total expenses a charity spent on its programs in the year analyzed and also the price to advanced $100.
For 2016, follow to taxes documents and audited financial statements, the Clinton structure spent 88 percent of its cash budget on programs, compared to 12 percent top top overhead, such together fundraising, management and expenses. The organization also calculated that it expenses the Clinton structure only $2 because that every $100 it raises.
In other words, the fact is nearly the opposite of what Parscale portrays in his chart. Indeed, CharityWatch consists of the Clinton foundation on its perform of top-rated charities.
(CharityWatch primarily rates windy charities, as well as some society welfare and also veterans establishments that generally solicit the public for donations, so the does not rate the trumped Foundation.)
Here’s an example of where data deserve to lie, if presented in a misleading fashion. Parscale’s chart compares apples and also oranges — and also then provides an expense-charity ratio for the Clinton foundation that is virtually backward. One might raise legit questions around the Clinton foundation without resorting to phony mathematics — or ignoring the well-documented problems with the to run of the trump Foundation. Parscale earns four Pinocchios.
See more: Three Cheese Burger Cheese Burger Cheese Burger S, 9 Best Cheeses For Burgers
“Data doesn’t lie: Clinton foundation was ‘slush fund’ if Hillary to be a Senator/Secretary/Pres candidate. Trump structure helped civilization in require with 100% come charities, but
Today’s HeadlinesThe most necessary news stories of the day, maintain by write-up editors and also delivered every morning.