Clinton Charity Aided Clinton Friends
Source: Wall Street Journal
HASTINGS, Neb.The Clinton Global Initiative, which arranges donations to help solve the worlds problems, set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons, including a current and a former Democratic official and a close friend of former President Bill Clinton.
....(continued)...
The Clinton Global Initiatives help for a for-profit company part-owned by Clinton friends poses a different issue. Under federal law, tax-exempt charitable organizations arent supposed to act in anyones private interest but instead in the public interest, on broad issues such as education or poverty.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, the Internal Revenue Service says on its website.
Energy Pioneer Solutions was founded in 2009 by Scott Kleeb, a Democrat who twice ran for Congress from Nebraska. An internal document from that year showed it as owned 29% by Mr. Kleeb; 29% by Jane Eckert, the owner of an art gallery in Pine Plains, N.Y.; and 29% by Julie Tauber McMahon of Chappaqua, N.Y., a close friend of Mr. Clinton, who also lives in Chappaqua.
Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-aided-clinton-friends-1463086383
msongs
(67,509 posts)penndragon69
(788 posts)It's his JOB to bring JOBS to
his state..that's why they elected him !
TheBlackAdder
(28,262 posts).
It's probably easier to list states that DO NOT have a Lockheed presence in them than do.
.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)A charity that, you know, is supposed to help people in need/good causes, not Clinton cronies.
Your first response one-liners are devolving into ridiculous, unhinged outbursts.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)is there really anything out there that they haven't turned toward profit?
Response to roguevalley (Reply #21)
AtomicKitten This message was self-deleted by its author.
Beowulf
(761 posts)beastie boy
(9,586 posts)CGI is NOT a charity organization. Nor is it a grant-giving organization.
I can't believe the people who call themselves progressive still taking Rupert's right wing rag seriously.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)The point is a shitload of money comes in and very little goes out in the form of grants or charitable contributions, 9% in fact according to 2013 filings, the most recent data available.
They have cronies on bloated salaries and spend lavishly on everything but actual good works. Analysts have called the web of charities, foundation, and CGI a virtual slush fund.
Open your eyes.
beastie boy
(9,586 posts)Seriously, I don't mind you basing your general conclusion if you give a shitload of evidence to support it, but you seem to use this article as an excuse to rant and moan against Hillary.
Frankly, I see nothing in this right wing rag article to suggest the described transaction was not legitimate. And to call CGI a "charity" is an outright lie designed to add a little extra red meat for the consumption of the right wingers.
Too bad you Bernie supporters are only too happy to take the bait.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)beastie boy
(9,586 posts)I guess this conversation is over.
ThirdWayToTheHighway
(72 posts)What on Earth else can a "Nonprofit Humanatarian Organization" be?
beastie boy
(9,586 posts)A "Nonprofit Humanatarian Organization" is by definition is not a "charity organization".
Does American Federation of Teachers, or Fulbright Exchange Programs, or the Rockefeller Foundation sound like a charity organization to you?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)beastie boy
(9,586 posts)Like Doctors Without Borders having a mass media unit that doesn't donate a penny's worth of goods or services to anyone. A subsidiary whose sole purpose is to provide goods, services or support to its parent organization.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)As such, the 990 tax document shows a corresponding increase in both revenue and expenses.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf
beastie boy
(9,586 posts)My analogy of a media unit within Doctors Without Borders still stands.
A subsidiary of a charitable organization that is not engaged in charity.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)The IRS designation is different, and reporting requirements are different. For instance, Planned Parenthood is a 501 3 (c) org which makes it a charitable organization. Planned Parenthood Political Action Fund is registered as a 501 4 (c) and not designated as a charity.
beastie boy
(9,586 posts)A subsidiary that has nothing to do with charitable giving. A subsidiary whose function it is to oversee certain non-charitable aspects of a charitable organization.
For all intents and purposes, the Clinton Foundation can incorporate its custodial services into a separate unit, and that unit will not be a charitable organization or have anything to do with the Clinton Foundation charities, while the Clinton Foundation would still be able to claim the unit as its asset.
That's not a difficult concept to grasp, is it?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)org MUST be registered and organized under different IRS rules. Otherwise, someone who donates would not have a clue which portion of their donation is tax-deductible and which portion is not. And neither would the IRS.
beastie boy
(9,586 posts)Anyone donating to the Clinton Foundation is entitled to full tax deduction allowable by law. Whether this money goes to charities or operational expenses (as in operating CGI, or any other subsidiary, or hiring an outside vendor) is entirely up to the Clinton Foundation, as long as they fully account for their expenses. The only limitation is if someone donates to CGI (it's a non-profit). In this case, the Clinton foundation is not entitled to a single penny of that donation, but the donation itself is still 100% tax deductible. CGI is not a "wing" for financial or administrative purposes. They are a subsidiary. In fact, there is no unit that has an IRS "wing" designation . There are no legal or administrative rules governing "wings" unless specifically defined and described in the bylaws of an organization.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I'm not surprised you'd use the word friends, what with the obsession with personality politics over in your camp.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Surely Bernie has a few constituents who are friends - no? So there's #1's rationale.
Envisioning Bernie on the phone: "Yeah, my pal Bennie - he's an expert riveter. Wouldja see if you get him a gig? And then, let's see.... Oh yeah, my friend Flora. I've heard she's really good at laying up layers of composites. I think she'd be great with some of this money we're handing out. Yeah Hey - see what you can do for them. They are, after all, constituents of mine, so's we gotta keep up appearances."
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)dchill
(38,642 posts)tymorial
(3,433 posts)I will come back when the adults stop acting like adolescents. If I can't because this comment is offensive and causes me a perm ban. So be it. There is far too much childish hate on this site anyway. Peace.
LW1977
(1,238 posts)Someone might alert you to the jury for calling it a pissing contest
tymorial
(3,433 posts)My comment may violate tos but it doesnt make it any less true.
LiberalArkie
(15,740 posts)Nihil
(13,508 posts)Up pops a thread mentioning "Clinton" and there in the first couple of replies
(frequently the first one) is the trolling hit & run disruption to give the rest
of the usual suspects chance to re-group and bury the unwanted subject
matter beneath the standard issue whitewash ...
Another disenchanted Democrat is merely one fewer source of embarrassing questions
in their eyes.
thesquanderer
(12,002 posts)It's part of their job.
A non-profit charity is not supposed to funnel business to their friends' for-profit companies. Like the quote in the OP says, The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests."
Without making any judgement here about whether this particular Clinton Foundation transaction was or was not permissible, at least conceptually, I assume you see the difference between what all politicians are (in part) supposed to be doing, and what a non-profit charity isn't supposed to be doing.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I thought the Clinton Foundation was about The Children?
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)The reason there are strict rules is that otherwise all the rich people/families would not be paying any taxes at all! If you can push charitable funds to for-profit corporations or specific people, then they become just a tax dodge.
Red Knight
(704 posts)Sad.
They will gladly look away at anything related to her--and that is a shame.
I hope, after they election these same voices won't decry all the corrupt garbage coming from the right.
You can't enable something and then condemn it.
CarrieLynne
(497 posts)No attempt at spin or defense or denial...just....'look over there!'
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)BootinUp
(47,231 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Whose main positive quality would be her being the first Woman President of the USA.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,898 posts)I'm not happy to see this. He ran for the House and Senate each once.
From the OP: Scott Kleeb, a Democrat who twice ran for Congress from Nebraska
Response to Halliburton (Original post)
Cryptoad This message was self-deleted by its author.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Has anyone else noticed this?
I think someone has lost some major leverage.
And this article is not surprising, to say the least. The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund. So many examples of quid-pro-quo arrangements through their Foundation.
It's time the truth comes out. The Clintons have abused their power in perverted ways. Time for both of them to retire from politics (and fundraising).
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Really took up against her. Claimed she lacks the courage of her convictions, and then Jon added, words to the effect of "But who even knows what her convictions are, or if she has any?"
840high
(17,196 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)NJCher
(35,843 posts)It is long overdue.
Cher
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)CrispyQ
(36,582 posts)almost makes me retch.
And so much for the claim that HRC will have her own administration & govern to the left of Bill & Obama. Like any of us ever believed that.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Hillary Clinton is to the right of Obama, for sure.
Furthermore, I anticipate that nearly everything she's said in this primary, will not happen.
I really don't trust anything she says.
What's more is what she doesn't say. So far, silent on Libya, Syria and Iran. You know that she can't wait to get her grubby paws on those countries, so that her neocon buddies can further destroy, destabilize and then move in to further their sick business interests.
There's a reason that she tapped Robert Kagan, the founder of the neocon movement, to be one of her advisers--while she was Secretary of State.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)so u dont think a private org can work for the benefit of the public? Why am I not surprised
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...this "private organization" has only spent ten percent of its revenue on charity. The rest is slush and payola.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)they can't follow it.
840high
(17,196 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,346 posts)They're keeping the grift in the family.
840high
(17,196 posts)some news about Mezinsky and of course it's called right wing smear. lol
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)is that the article is about the 'Clinton Global Initiative,' which was 'spun off' from the Clinton Foundation in 2009, but was brought back into the Foundation 3 years ago.
There are so many 'Clinton'-named 'initiatives,' some within the Foundation and some that have spun off, that the entire enterprise is very, very difficult to audit or assess.
The Global Initiative has major sponsors like Blackstone (international capital/hedge funds/private equity) and 'Consolidated Contractors Company' (an international construction company). Why do organizations like that pump money into a 'non profit,' seemingly altruistic organization? It's all business. The Clintons have simply become international business facilitators, under the auspices of charity, and have been very successful at it.
Basically, someone comes up with a 'let's promote business development among X people of the X part of the world,' then the 'members' end up getting in touch with all manner of business persons in that part of the world, and then they land some contracts. Or maybe just make the right contacts, then land contracts a couple of years later.
I just don't understand why all of it is worth the work and manipulation. What is it they're really after?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....and laundered huge fortunes through that too, and claimed that Canada law would not allow the revealing of the names of the donors (which Canada says is not true).
What is it they are after? They've raised three billion dollars, and they have run a rogue foreign policy out of Obama's WH under his nose.
It seems that they intend to garner enough power to rule the world, in de facto ways, using the world's greatest military to get what they want.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)I'll go out on a limb and say Oil, mining, natural resources, and cheap/repressed labor markets in easy to manipulate developing countries?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)the accusation is supposed to sting us who are true progressives, that we are guilty of making "RW attacks!"
So what if you consider the attacks right wing? Your candidate is as much of a neo con and Right Winger as any other war-supporting, Big Bank Enabling, Sell Out.
And it almost hurts to hear her compared to Nixon, as Nixon rolled back prices and did what he could to hold the banks in check. As much as I hated Nixon at the time, under his administration, great strides were made to protect the environment. Meanwhile the TPP that Clinton supports will disable most environmental regulations we still have here, as it will destroy our sovereignty.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)that a "sting" even existed,,,,,, just make it up as u go?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)NO one is suggesting that Sid Blumenthal went in under the direction of the FBI and enticed Ms Clinton to do the things she did. Both Blumenthal and Clinton were acting under their own authority, with no "sting" involved.
Secondly, I don't have to prove anything. That is what we have the various watchdog agencies for. (Including the FBI.) I didn't start following this tragic unfolding of events until weeks after the FBI was involved.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)I didn't use it,,,, geeez
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)From office and politics when he was caught. A Clinton will never have that.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Doesn't any thinking person have to wonder what the heck Blumenthal and Giustra have to offer the "Charity" known as the Clinton Foundation.
Also, I think Factcheck tries to figure things out, but they are rather naive. Sort of like a ten year old kid back in the 1880's who when asking his grade school teacher if the settlers weren't mean to the Indians, gets told, "Oh but the settlers and US Cavalry were nice to the Indians, giving them warm blankets to help them survive the winter storms." And then the kid accepts that as the whole truth.
LiberalFighter
(51,403 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons, said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group once run by leading progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout.
The Clinton familys mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
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.
<snip>
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/17/1516678/-Government-Watchdog-Calls-Clinton-Foundation-A-Slush-Fund
Divernan
(15,480 posts)If you looked at the U.S. economy under a microscope, what youd see is a gigantic cancerous blob of cronyism surrounded by tech startups and huge prisons. If you zeroed in on the cancerous tumor, at the nucleus youd see a network of crony institutions like the Federal Reserve, intelligence agencies, TBTF Wall Street banks and defense contractors. Pretty close to that, youd probably find the Clinton Foundation. A veritable clearinghouse for cronyism masquerading as a charity.[/blockquote]
We saw it was pay to play triangulation between Hillary's state department, Bill's Clinton Foundation and purchasers (like Saudi Arabia/cluster bombs) of military hardware.
Well, now imagine Bill as President Hillary Clinton's go-to guy for international trade pacts. Baby, we ain't seen nothing yet!
Divernan
(15,480 posts)is not spending on "charity" in my book. Look at Haiti - it's a classic Clinton playbook. Take one natural disaster in a 3rd world country, approach corporate donors with a plan to exploit slave labor wages from desperate work force, have said corporations make tax deductible donations with promise said $$$ will be used to build up corporate infrastructure including industrial parks, necessary roads & commercial shipping harbor facilities, adequate supply of utilities to said parks, and a luxury, 5 star hotel in which visiting corporate folks can stay while overseeing business operations, including hiring folks for $3.50 per day wages! Oh, and skim a healthy percentage off the top to pay Bill back for "facilitating". Six years later, several hundred thousand Haitians are still living in hovels with no water, electricity or sewage.
You've heard of "Disaster Capitalism"? Well Bill has turned "Disaster Exploitation" into an art form.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)said candidate.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The vote count for HRC in Baltimore is being de-certified!
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)why does DU allow right wing attacks of the most likely Democratic Nominee????
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Critical Reading is Critically Fundamental ,,,,,
an RWNJ attack should not be allowed on any likely nominee !
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)are one of them with that bright red arrow pointing to the right....eww bad Feng Shui.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)"Don't Catch Your Chickens Before They are Hatched."
Your "presumptive" candidate is get de-presumpted every minute of the day.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)u just making it up as u type...
even older proverb... "never curse the Tide for Coming in"
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)be publicized BEFORE she becomes the nominee, rather than after.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,038 posts)you and other Clinton supporters to post any unreasoned or parroting response you may want to post. It's, oh what is it called, an Internet forum.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)means they have nothing to say! Its a Democratic Forum,,,,,, nobody should be allowed to post RWNJ attacks of any possible nominee of the Party, much less any likely nominee.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,038 posts)But hey, I guess I could put you on ignore when I get tired of seeing the same sort of personal attacks you perport to decry.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Why can the Clintons not bear any responsibility for themselves or their organizations?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)That is so... well, kind of like saying water is wet.
The entire 'Global Initiative' is a front group for the influence peddling of the Clintons and Frank Giustra.
They do just enough altrustic-seeming things to look legit.
What I don't get is the extent to which the Clintons have shown they are willing to go to make all of this stuff happen. Soliciting all that money for so many years, organizing both their 'Foundation' and the 'Global Initiative,' the absurd amount of money they raked in from 'speeches' in 2014... What's it really about? There's no doubt that they've worked their asses off building all of this up - is it just unfettered ambition for power and influence?
If that's not it, I wish someone could explain it to me...
GoneOffShore
(17,346 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Davos, where the world's charities frugally gather to carefully squeeze every penny, euro cent, fen, halala, and yen out of their perennially tight budgets to serve the poor, sick and helpless around the world.
Or... throw gala bashes where their donors can see their hard-spent mega-donations put to good use humoring themselves.
Maybe not so much the first one.
creeksneakers2
(7,492 posts)That's the only logical explanation.
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)They want to hang with the jet set.
Bill want's to have fun.
Hillary must have attention and admiration 24/7.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Or geniuses - I could go that way too.
See my post # 47
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)I posted first, then read through the comments.
I wonder how the Clinton supporters would answer if this were about any Republican and their "charity"?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)But the thing is - I certainly remember being dedicated to people, not all that terribly long ago, to the extent that I absolutely would not entertain any notions that they might not be as good or right as I believed them to be.
It's a human thing.
Now, rather a good deal older and, I hope, a bit wiser, I see people a lot more as they are as compared to how I would like to imagine them to be.
I can't say I blame people for thinking and acting in a predictably human way. The best we can do is try to see things clearly as well as we can and maybe help others see a little less blur around the edges from time to time...
George II
(67,782 posts)greiner3
(5,214 posts)Sonny was a mean sob who abused Cher and was as 'right' as they come
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I was shocked when that happened, because I had always assumed that he was liberal-minded.
George II
(67,782 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)except with a stupid vid that has nothing to do with the material you're dodging
George II
(67,782 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)which appears to be your ONLY discernable strong suit that the laughing/rolling emoticon defense only validates
Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)Thanks for the thread, Halliburton.
MsInformed
(48 posts)Seems like is sowed some nice rancor.
GoneOffShore
(17,346 posts)Kind of like reading HRC's speech transcripts.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Sanders campaign when he ran for Senator?
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)MsInformed
(48 posts)The company, whose business plan was to insulate peoples homes and let them pay via their utility bills, received an $812,000 Energy Department grant.
Many folks want to upgrade and never would be able to finance it. I think it's a good thing to facilitate this sort of endeavor even if someone is making a profit.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Rec
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Planned Parenthood purchases medical supplies and medications from big Pharma!
The Jimmy Carter Habitat for Humanity purchases building supplies, and probably from people they know and are somehow connected with that makes a profit!
The cancer research institute purchases medical supplies and medications from big Pharma as well!
Oh, we're not actually using right wing talking points to attack progressive charities now?
Produce something that shows the foundation paid outside the standard range of charges for supplies/services.. You have a point. Otherwise this is ridiculous at the least.
What has the Bernie Sanders foundation done to help make the world a better place again?
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)It's a hard knock life (not!) for Bill & his corporate donor buddies.
And speaking of private jets, no doubt the GOP has chapter and verse, plus photos, documenting Bill's 12 trips on the Lolita Express.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Lets check the charitable contributions and income that way. Wouldn't want to lie to Uncle Sam, voters good though.
beastie boy
(9,586 posts)Nor is it a grant giving organization.
Trust Rupert Murdoch to not intentionally misrepresent stuff.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Surprised it managed to bubble up out of the bog of baggage
Drippity Drip Drip.
Good news.....it's not too late to change course
GoneOffShore
(17,346 posts)xloadiex
(628 posts)info on Julie Tauber McMahon.
forest444
(5,902 posts)Her only hope is a third-party right-wing run by someone like Robmey or Ben Sasse.
Without that the Rethugs could nominate Larry Craig, and he'd probably beat her.
trudyco
(1,258 posts)So Clinton Foundation is a Charity and supposedly spends 88% of its funding on in-house projects. But I'm reading the number one project is the clinton library and number two is giving money to CGI?
CGI is a non-profit that isn't a charity. It spends money throwing glitzy events and conventions where rich people talk about helping the poor. They don't do, they just talk. Clintons and friends get free trips going around the world do this. Then CGI decides to give first 2 million but then ultimately 500K to the energizer's company. Not only is Clinton's purported mistress 29% owner, 5% is owned by Huma Abedin's husband, Mr. Weiner (of the selfie daddy parts fame?). And the Clintons persuaded the energy department to also give the fledgling company a nearly million dollar grant? They first listed the person they had donate the 500K as a donor to CGI or the Clinton Foundation but later took it off the books - maybe because they knew it was illegal?
Yipes. I feel like Alice in Wonderland.