Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Cintons' "Charitable" Giving
When the Clinton's released their tax returns last week, they touted the fact that they gave approximately 10% to charity.
NYTimes is reporting, however, that all of that money was actually given to their own foundation, and only half of it spent. What's more the foundation spent the majority of it last year after Hillary announced her run for President.
[T]he Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy.Of the $10M the Clintons gave to their foundation, only about $2M had actually been spent prior to 2007.
A representative of the Clintons said that when they and their foundation filed their 2007 tax returns, the records would show that all of the $3 million they gave to the foundation last year had been passed on to other charities. That will account for more than half of all the charitable donations that the foundation has made since 2001, according to a review of its tax returns.
Advertisement
Comments (22)
Pearl, the way this works is you give 10 million to set up the foundation, invest it, and then spent the interest on charitable giving. The foundation wasn't, like, the Clinton Foundation for Struggling Clintons. The foundation then donated money every year to a great variety of causes--from cancer research to scholarships to arts to pediatric cardiology in Africa to the Bush Katrina Fund to churches.
April 7, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not saying it's anything as nefarious as giving money to themselves. Just seems a bit odd that once she announces her run for the presidency, the foundation suddenly gives $3M that year, where it only gave $2M the prior 6. That's a lot of interest.
April 7, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me get this straight, you're complaining because the Clintons donated money to a valid charitable organization and you fault them personally because the charitable organization has not spent all of their money yet?!? Heaven forbid that the organaization might actually be a foundation set up to give over many years, not just one time.
I'm sure you're not the smartest Obamatista out there but here's an analogy ... Bill and Melinda Gates have given/pledged their billions to a foundation called the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And you may be surprised that that Foundation hasn't spent every last dollar that they have donated (yet alone pledged). Do you consider that shady or somehow improper?
If this is what we have to look forward to with the Obama fans for four years count me out.
April 7, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow someone's quite touchy today. Read the post again, it's mostly quoted language from the NY Times article and I simply state that they really didn't give 10% to charity.
My point is simple: The Clintons' "charitable" giving is NOT what it is being made out to be. It's not the 10% magic number, they were obviously shooting for. They increased both their giving, and the foundations activity in preparation for HRC's presidential run. From 2005 to 2007 they donated approximately $6.3M of the total $10M to their foundation.
Furthermore, the foundation gave money to actual causes at a very slow rate. It gave about $2M between 2001 and 2006 to actual causes, then suddenly gave $3M this year. So break that down. Between 2001 and 2006 the Clintons earned approximately $90M. Their foundation gave $2M to actual causes. That's 2.2%. They gave the foundation $7M. That's
Suddenly, in 2007 as the campaign ramps up, they give $3M to the foundation, and the foundation purportedly spends about the same amount. They earned $20M, so that means 15% of their earned income found its way to actual causes this year.
Coincidence?
April 7, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I simply state that they really didn't give 10% to charity."
Which is wrong. And, have to agree with pmSanFran, you really do seem to be a bit of an idiot. The £10 million they've given to their charity is there, in the charity. The charity has it. The Clintons don't. The money is no longer in the Clintons bank account, it's with the charity.
Do I need to say it again? They've given away 10%. Gees.
The next question, is why hasn't the charity given away all its money? Presumably, as pmSanFran said, their charity has an eye on the future, so that it can continue to give money based on interest earned. Any money above the basic capital needed (eg the $3 mill last year) could be given away without affecting the viability of the charity.
Maybe they did give a bit of extra money in election year - so what? Look at Obama's donation profile (and where his money went...)! I think it's incredible just how altruistic the Clintons have been - they could have structured their finances to give much, much less back to the goverment (and society) if they'd wished.
April 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
pmSanFran...
I think it is slightly petty accusation, but the Clintons have cultivated and even thrived on the "fighting politician" meme. Unfortunately, there is a bit of a blowback on that image in this election. I think that has to do with Penn's positioning -- the 35 y.o.e. and "political animal," of WJC.
As a result, just as ppl who are already biased against Microsoft view the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as partially PR tool, skeptics of the Clintons view the Clinton Family Foundation in a similar light.
That is to say, they view the CFF as a way of gaining favor and endorsements from/with non-profit organizations.
However, to take this sort of position I do believe more _proof_ is needed.
e.g. cross-list non-profits receiving CFF donations to see if there is a high correlation of quid-pro-quo endorsement of HRC.
Even still, correlation does not causation make.
April 7, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
well why don't you expand on the analogy then and tell us exactly what foundation has Barack Obama set up and funded with his tens of millions in royalties from his books. You know one of which was titled after a sermon from his mentor/minister Revernd Wright, Audacity of Hope. But of course Obama doesn't agree with everything Rev. Wright says and wasn't even in the congregation during the "God Damn America" sermon.
Just because their last name is Clinton and her husband led the longest sustained period of peace and prosperity in anyone's recollection they must be secretly (and illegally) using this charitable foundation which is run by an independent board of directors, for their own personal gain.
I feel sorry for you Obamaistas. You've been wearing your tin-foil hats so long the metal has seeped into your puny brains.
April 7, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are reading far too much into this. All I'm saying is they're making their giving sound like more than it actually was.
Nothing more.
April 7, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a petty blog posting. "Suddenly" you look like more of an idiot than usual because you posted this today and not last week.
Because the Clintons have not donated a uniform percentage to charity every years since they left the White House you impugn their incredible gnerosity. Senator Clinton has run for re-election in that time too, but of course their donations have all been timed only to make her run for president more credible is your theory? You truly are a pathetic person if you have to impugn someone's reputation on that kind of hypothesis.
April 7, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not call it what it is. This is just a tax shelter for the Clintons.
April 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually one interesting thing about the Clinton's tax returns is it looks like they didn't take advantage of a lot of the things the rich do to avoid paying taxes. And the Clinton Family Foundation gives money away; it's not a tax shelter. A foundation is how very rich people organize their charity; you can give more away that way.
I'm an Obama supporter. And I'm desperately amused by the person talking about tin foil hats still spewing the Wright stuff, along with no actual facts. Obama has not received tens of millions of dollars from book royalties, nowhere close. And the Clinton Family Foundation is not run by an independent board of directors, but rather by Bill, Hill, and Chelsea. I don't mean to interrupt your insulting tirade with actual facts though, I understand how rude that can be.
April 7, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you're actually right, I mixed up the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Family Foundation. The idea is still the same, the money is dedicated already to the foundation and is subject to strict IRS guidelines that Pearl refuses to admit/believe prevent them from using the money for "political" purposes.
Yes, you're right that I overstated the revenue from his books (Audacity of Hope was titled after his mentor's sermon though). The royalties from his books are in the low single millions through 2006, but since Barrack hasn't released his 2007 tax returns (which the Clintons have) we don't know what his royalties in the last year have been.
April 8, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pearl, it's clear that you don't know the first thing about charitable foundations or the way they operate. There's nothing nefarious going on here.
What the Clintons gave to their foundation is called an endowment, so that said foundation would subsequently earn and spend the interest accrued from that amount.
Therefore, $10 million in endowment capital would potentially, if invested wisely by the foundation's financial board, net the foundation approximately $600,000 to $800,000 in operating capital annually, as long as the corpus of the endowment -- in this case, the original $10 million -- remained intact for investment purposes. As the foundation receives and invests other endowment donations, the interest accrued will be that much greater, and subsequently more operating capital will be available for charitable work.
April 7, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay Don "Endowment Expert" from Hawaii, explain to me why they suddenly gave $3M, in 2007, and the foundation started spending at a much more rapid rate.
I believe it was because she was running for president and wanted to inflate their charitable activities to make it look like they gave 10% of their adjusted gross income to charity.
What's your take?
April 7, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's you who doesn't understand what a charitable gift deduction on your tax return means. The Clintons DID give $10M dollars to charity since they left the White House. They took the legal deduction on their taxes because the money was given away and was no longer theirs. If they hadn't it would be tax fraud and they could be charged with a crime.
You're confused in that you think that they "pledged" this money, took the tax deduction, and are holding onto the money in their own accounts until the foundation disperses it. That's a completely false interpretation of the article. But what would you expect from an Obama supporter.
April 7, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
pmSanFran --- relax, I agree with you.
And I happen to be strongly leaning toward Obama.
The potential for abuse does not mean there has been abuse.
I reiterate I believe this meme is petty,
as I detailed more proof is needed before someone should make such an accusation.
However, I'd be interested in seeing which organizations received the money Pearl White -- it be interesting to look at the WJC Foundation as well to see which orgs receive the money.
The money is sitting in a foundation which the Clinton's can still dispense after they have used the tax benefit, and the WJC did seem to receive quid pro quo donations:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html
April 7, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are interested in either foundation, please refer to this post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/ten-activities-of-the-clinton.php
My post is about the WJC Foundation, but in the comments people post links to more information about the Clinton Family Foundation, and I also listed some of their contributions. There are plenty.
April 7, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the contributions are legalistically "charitable"... I fail to see how contributing to so-called charitable groups dedicated to the political promotion of oneself is honestly charitable. Sounds dishonetst and self-obsessed to me.
April 7, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a tool. Exactly which of the charitable donations that the foundation has made was political? If you have evidence that the foundation is really political then you need to contact the IRS and report this illegal activity. But of course you don't. You just have your tin-foil hat addled brain telling you stories again.
Get out and get some fresh air today, that pasty skin is coming from sitting in front of a computer monitor too long.
April 8, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Pearl. Nice try. The whole idea of the post to start with was the daily attempt by an Obama supporter to tell us what rotten and shifty people the Clintons are.
You may dislike how they set up their foundation and may think it is self-serving but you cannot deny they gave the money to charity. It is not in their savings or checking account any more. No matter how much money you make, giving away $10 million is laudable. Instead of giving credit where it is due (or just keeping quiet about it), you are falling into line with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the righties promoting the idea the Clintons are pulling a fast one.
Shame on you for doing so.
April 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this silly screed a recommended post?
April 8, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Cause it's anti-Clinton. Alas, there's an abundance of idiot Obamanoids on this site sufficiently Pavlovian-conditioned to hit 'recommend' every time someone makes up an idiotic allegation.
April 8, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment