Tell People the Truth

By Ed Hoffman

At Wholesale Capital Corporation, we created a 501(c)(3) so that we could raise money for charity via golf tournaments and other events. When we do these, my colleagues and I are expected to hand over all of the money to the charities we are collecting for. One year, we were able to raise $70,000 that was split between Moreno Valley Community Hospital (before it was purchased by Kaiser) and the Ronald McDonald House. When you give to a charity, you probably expect the organization you’re giving to will do the same thing: give all of the money to the mission you donated to.

But if you donate to the Clinton Foundation – which claims that its mission is “improving global health, increasing opportunity for women and girls, reducing childhood obesity and preventable diseases, creating economic opportunity and growth and helping communities address the effects of climate change” – you may be sorely disappointed to learn that only six percent of the grants and pledges donated to this foundation are spent directly on aid. For the skeptics out there, this isn’t some “right wing conspiracy.” The tax returns prove it. As reported by the New York Post, 2013 tax returns from the foundation spearheaded by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea 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
• Nearly $8.5 million on travel

The $64 million left over, the foundation claims, represents “pledges rather than actual cash on hand.” This behemoth charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in a single year, but spent only $9 million of it on direct aid to the people it purports to help. According to watchdog group Charity Navigator, a good charity should spend at least 75 percent of its donations on its mission; maybe that’s why this group placed the Clinton Foundation on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits just one month ago, and why it recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation at all, citing the charity’s “atypical business model.” My question: Since when do charities have a “business model?”

Americans were given an information avalanche about the Clinton Foundation last week, including the news that:

• Then-Secretary of State Clinton allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States in exchange for a donation to the foundation.
• Rosatom (the Russian company) acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Clinton friend Frank Giustra, who pledged over $130 million to the foundation and sits on its board.
• Bill Clinton made $500,000 for a Moscow speech that was paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin” at the time of this deal.
• Hillary’s brother Tony Rodham sits on the board of a mining company that scored a lucrative gold exploration permit in Haiti, right as the Clinton Foundation gave the Haitian government billions of dollars for earthquake relief.

The Clinton Foundation is not a charity; it’s a slush fund that has kept the Clintons rich for years. It pays for Bill, Hillary and Chelsea’s lavish lifestyle and gives their friends and relatives coveted business deals. This is what voters need to know, so spread the word to your own friends and relatives as they start paying attention to the 2016 election cycle. If they were concerned last time around that Mitt Romney was “too rich,” “greedy” or some other tripe they heard in the media, then they should certainly be concerned about this. People have to know the truth.