The Clinton Foundation Appears to Be A Terrible Charity

From the Federalist

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012,2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”

Now it may be that the "other"expenses are directly benefiting someone but the numbers here are not encouraging.  There are a number of sham charities out there whose income goes mostly to supporting  the lifestyle of their directors and employees so that they can make good money but simultaneously be self-righteous.   I do not know that this is the case here but I think you can be pretty sure the reason they get most of their donations is to curry favor with the Clintons rather than because the organization is particularly efficient or adept at deploying charitable resources.


  1. Onlooker from Troy:

    At minimum they've got some serious explaining to do.

  2. Vypuero:

    This is called how to launder a bribe

  3. jdgalt:

    You can view IRS filings, and ratings, for all US charities on However, the ratings (mostly of how much money goes to overhead) are not always useful. They more or less assume that all charities' mission is to help the poor (so they're somewhat clueless when a charity's mission is education, or medical research, or science) -- and they take the charity's word for what it spent on "program activities" (and a LOT of charities pay their officers and directors exorbitant salaries and call it "program activities").

  4. Matthew Slyfield:

    Why would anyone, anywhere think that a charitable foundation named after an active politician would be a good charity??

  5. Onlooker from Troy:

    Yep, as others have opined, it's just a money laundering operation for political payola.

  6. Matthew Slyfield:

    Yes, but my point is that it's not just this particular (Clinton Foundation) charity, but every charity named after an active politician regardless of political persuasion.

  7. alanstorm:

    I think you're confusing "charity" with "slush fund".

    "There are a number of sham charities out there whose income goes mostly
    to supporting the lifestyle of their directors and employees so that
    they can make good money but simultaneously be self-righteous. I do
    not know that this is the case here..."

    Sure you do. You just perfectly described a "progressive's" dream.

  8. herdgadfly:

    Another question to consider is whether the William J. Clinton Presidential Center and Trailer Park Fund donations are administered by the same person or persons that funnel Clinton Charity funds to the namesake couple.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but Hummer Bill had a legal fund established to pay for his continuous lawsuits resulting from bimbo eruptions, special prosecutor defenses and his impeachment lawyers..

  9. Bram:

    Even the NY Times is taking notice of the Clinton's open corruption and their willingness to undermine American interests for cash.

  10. irandom419:

    Think I remember years ago, that this isn't uncommon. If you're loaded, you set-up a charity that pays you to donate your own money.

  11. Nehemiah:

    This is not that common. Sure, there are charitable organizations with very pour ratios of $1 collected to $1 to directly to mission. 15% to the mission is horrible. This was set up to sell the only commodity the Clinton's possess, political access. This sick, very sick.

  12. Emmanuel Henry:

    They're really packed with funds

  13. jmarvin:

    I think the big issue in this will turn out to be tax evasion. Bill and Hillary give speeches to make $300k - $500k. They tell the sponsor to pay the fee as a donation to the Clinton Foundation. Since only 15% of the funds go to support charity and the rest goes to them or their activities, their effective "tax rate" on income is 15% rather than 40%.

  14. Craig Loehle:

    It is simply impossible for a charity such as this to accept money from foreign governments while Hillary was sec state and say that it did not influence US government actions. All these governments had to do was to make her more friendly to them--they didn't have to be so dumb as to make a quid pro quo statement in writing. How can anyone say that Bill giving a speech in Russia for $500,000 while his wife was sec state was not a serious violation?

  15. arch1432:

    How many employees does this "charity" have? 110 million in employee salaries wow!

  16. William Epps:

    Ah jeez! Ah guys gotta live ya know!

  17. hal09i:

    Supposedly, the Clintons have been refilling tax returns for the years in question, making changes and amendments.

  18. Arrian:

    $290 million in "other expenses" sounds really bad.

    But, don't assume that, just because a charity pays well or has high overhead, it's a bad charity. Would you say a for profit firm that has a payroll of 22% of its revenues is profligate? Don't you need to pay well to attract good people? Can a charity that hires private-sector quality people at private sector wages maybe more effective than a charity that only hires bleeding hearts at a heavy discount (and makes them do secretarial work on top of their charitable activities?)

    Also, it takes money to make money. Which can do more good, a charity that gathers $500 million and delivers $75 million to its goal, or a charity that gathers $100 thousand and delivers $80 thousand?

  19. RHarrisonScott:

    What are foreign donors donating to when they know that only 15% are dedicated to philanthropy? Surely, they're not stupid.