Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Attachments:
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
Old White Rich and Greedy
()
Date: June 16, 2015 02:34PM
Clintons charge big fees to small groups
The Clinton Foundation has taken in as much as $11M in payments from non-profit groups.
By KENNETH P. VOGEL 6/16/15 5:12 AM EDT Updated 6/16/15 6:07 AM EDT
When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the club’s finances.
Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clinton’s appearance as from Rice’s, according to the sources and tax filings.
Instead, Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s own sprawling $2 billion charity.
The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which has come under scrutiny for its fundraising and fiscal management, has taken in as much as $11.7 million in payments from other nonprofit groups. The money was paid for speeches given by Hillary Clinton; her husband, the former president; and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton, since the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency in 2001, according to a POLITICO analysis of a list of speeches voluntarily released last month by the foundation.
The groups range from smaller charities like Long Beach’s Boys and Girls Club and an AIDS service provider, Chicago House, to public policy advocacy groups, large universities and trade associations.
The Clinton Foundation has taken in as much as $11M in payments from non-profit groups.
By KENNETH P. VOGEL 6/16/15 5:12 AM EDT Updated 6/16/15 6:07 AM EDT
When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the club’s finances.
Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clinton’s appearance as from Rice’s, according to the sources and tax filings.
Instead, Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s own sprawling $2 billion charity.
The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which has come under scrutiny for its fundraising and fiscal management, has taken in as much as $11.7 million in payments from other nonprofit groups. The money was paid for speeches given by Hillary Clinton; her husband, the former president; and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton, since the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency in 2001, according to a POLITICO analysis of a list of speeches voluntarily released last month by the foundation.
The groups range from smaller charities like Long Beach’s Boys and Girls Club and an AIDS service provider, Chicago House, to public policy advocacy groups, large universities and trade associations.
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
okay
()
Date: June 16, 2015 02:38PM
Attachments:
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
Libby Tardz
()
Date: June 16, 2015 03:40PM
okay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
+1
If you can't personally profit off of the Boys and Girls Club, who are you going to profit from?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
+1
If you can't personally profit off of the Boys and Girls Club, who are you going to profit from?
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
Conserva-tards!
()
Date: June 16, 2015 03:56PM
Libby Tardz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you can't personally profit off of the Boys and
> Girls Club, who are you going to profit from?
"Personally profit"? lol.
"Ms. Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s charity, The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation"
Reality bites, but 'tards gonna 'tard!
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you can't personally profit off of the Boys and
> Girls Club, who are you going to profit from?
"Personally profit"? lol.
"Ms. Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s charity, The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation"
Reality bites, but 'tards gonna 'tard!
Conserva-tards!
LoLz!
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
Finish your thought...
()
Date: June 16, 2015 04:05PM
Conserva-tards! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libby Tardz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you can't personally profit off of the Boys
> and
> > Girls Club, who are you going to profit from?
>
> "Personally profit"? lol.
>
> "Ms. Clinton steered her speaking fee to her
> family’s charity, The Bill, Hillary and
> Chelsea Clinton Foundation"
>
> Reality bites, but 'tards gonna 'tard!
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!
Which is operated by _________?
Who benefit personally both directly and indirectly from its operations. As well as benefiting their associates.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libby Tardz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you can't personally profit off of the Boys
> and
> > Girls Club, who are you going to profit from?
>
> "Personally profit"? lol.
>
> "Ms. Clinton steered her speaking fee to her
> family’s charity, The Bill, Hillary and
> Chelsea Clinton Foundation"
>
> Reality bites, but 'tards gonna 'tard!
>
> Conserva-tards!
>
> LoLz!
Which is operated by _________?
Who benefit personally both directly and indirectly from its operations. As well as benefiting their associates.
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
campaign bench
()
Date: June 16, 2015 04:23PM
Plus, the foundation kept soon to be campaign staffers on its payrolls simply sitting there collecting a paycheck until she was legally allowed to put them on campaign salaries.
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
I'm going to guess
()
Date: June 16, 2015 04:27PM
Finish your thought... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which is operated by _________?
I'm going to guess its Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.
> Who benefit personally both directly and
> indirectly from its operations. As well as
> benefiting their associates.
It's a charity. No one benefits personally from a charity.
campaign bench Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The foundation kept soon to be campaign
> staffers on its payrolls simply sitting
> there collecting a paycheck until she
> was legally allowed to put them on
> campaign salaries.
I doubt that. I am sure that everyone paid by the Foundation was performing Foundation work.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which is operated by _________?
I'm going to guess its Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.
> Who benefit personally both directly and
> indirectly from its operations. As well as
> benefiting their associates.
It's a charity. No one benefits personally from a charity.
campaign bench Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The foundation kept soon to be campaign
> staffers on its payrolls simply sitting
> there collecting a paycheck until she
> was legally allowed to put them on
> campaign salaries.
I doubt that. I am sure that everyone paid by the Foundation was performing Foundation work.
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
campaign bench
()
Date: June 16, 2015 04:33PM
I'm going to guess Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> campaign bench Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The foundation kept soon to be campaign
> > staffers on its payrolls simply sitting
> > there collecting a paycheck until she
> > was legally allowed to put them on
> > campaign salaries.
>
> I doubt that. I am sure that everyone paid by the
> Foundation was performing Foundation work.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahah!
[pauses to catch breath]
Bwaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Oh, stop it, I can't breathe!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhaha!
[gasping for air]
Bwahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahaha!
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> campaign bench Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The foundation kept soon to be campaign
> > staffers on its payrolls simply sitting
> > there collecting a paycheck until she
> > was legally allowed to put them on
> > campaign salaries.
>
> I doubt that. I am sure that everyone paid by the
> Foundation was performing Foundation work.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahah!
[pauses to catch breath]
Bwaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Oh, stop it, I can't breathe!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhaha!
[gasping for air]
Bwahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahaha!
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
Alright, don't hurt yourself
()
Date: June 16, 2015 04:40PM
campaign bench Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
> haahhaahah!
>
> [pauses to catch breath]
>
> Bwaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
> ahahahahahah!
>
> Oh, stop it, I can't breathe!
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahh
> ahahahahhaha!
>
> [gasping for air]
>
> Bwahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahah
> hahahahahahaha!
Alright, don't hurt yourself. I know how fragile you right-wingers are...
Do you have evidence that staffers paid by the Foundation did not perform any Foundation duties?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
> haahhaahah!
>
> [pauses to catch breath]
>
> Bwaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
> ahahahahahah!
>
> Oh, stop it, I can't breathe!
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahh
> ahahahahhaha!
>
> [gasping for air]
>
> Bwahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahah
> hahahahahahaha!
Alright, don't hurt yourself. I know how fragile you right-wingers are...
Do you have evidence that staffers paid by the Foundation did not perform any Foundation duties?
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
campaign bench
()
Date: June 16, 2015 04:53PM
Alright, don't hurt yourself Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> campaign bench Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
>
> > haahhaahah!
> >
> > [pauses to catch breath]
> >
> >
> Bwaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
>
> > ahahahahahah!
> >
> > Oh, stop it, I can't breathe!
> >
> >
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahh
>
> > ahahahahhaha!
> >
> > [gasping for air]
> >
> >
> Bwahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahah
>
> > hahahahahahaha!
>
> Alright, don't hurt yourself. I know how fragile
> you right-wingers are...
I know, right. So fragile, we want to regulate every aspect of your life. Oh, wait....
> Do you have evidence that staffers paid by the
> Foundation did not perform any Foundation duties?
I have evidence that obvious campaign staffers were given foundation jobs just to bide their time until a campaign was started. All you have to do is look at the list of names that appear on both rosters. One, in particular, should jump out immediately. Only an idiot (you) wouldn't see/admit it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> campaign bench Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
>
> > haahhaahah!
> >
> > [pauses to catch breath]
> >
> >
> Bwaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
>
> > ahahahahahah!
> >
> > Oh, stop it, I can't breathe!
> >
> >
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahh
>
> > ahahahahhaha!
> >
> > [gasping for air]
> >
> >
> Bwahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahah
>
> > hahahahahahaha!
>
> Alright, don't hurt yourself. I know how fragile
> you right-wingers are...
I know, right. So fragile, we want to regulate every aspect of your life. Oh, wait....
> Do you have evidence that staffers paid by the
> Foundation did not perform any Foundation duties?
I have evidence that obvious campaign staffers were given foundation jobs just to bide their time until a campaign was started. All you have to do is look at the list of names that appear on both rosters. One, in particular, should jump out immediately. Only an idiot (you) wouldn't see/admit it.
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
XVKyD
()
Date: June 16, 2015 04:59PM
Alright, don't hurt yourself Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Alright, don't hurt yourself. I know how fragile
> you right-wingers are...
>
> Do you have evidence that staffers paid by the
> Foundation did not perform any Foundation duties?
Whether they perform "foundation duties" isn't really the issue...
"The Clinton Foundation's finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its "watch list" of problematic nonprofits last month.
The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
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.
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in "functional expenses" on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over - money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.
Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world. But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.
Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its "atypical business model... doesn’t meet our criteria."
Charity Navigator put the foundation on its "watch list," which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton's troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.
Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation's tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.
"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 where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.
In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months' work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.
Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.
Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.
The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity."
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Alright, don't hurt yourself. I know how fragile
> you right-wingers are...
>
> Do you have evidence that staffers paid by the
> Foundation did not perform any Foundation duties?
Whether they perform "foundation duties" isn't really the issue...
"The Clinton Foundation's finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its "watch list" of problematic nonprofits last month.
The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
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.
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in "functional expenses" on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over - money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.
Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world. But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.
Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its "atypical business model... doesn’t meet our criteria."
Charity Navigator put the foundation on its "watch list," which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton's troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.
Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation's tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.
"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 where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.
In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months' work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.
Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.
Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.
The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity."
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
Skills are directly transferable
()
Date: June 16, 2015 05:05PM
campaign bench Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All you have to do is look at the list of names
> that appear on both rosters. One, in particular,
> should jump out immediately. Only an idiot (you)
> wouldn't see/admit it.
What do you suppose people who work on projects (like political campaigns) do for work when there are no projects to work on? They get other, temporary, jobs. The skills of seasoned campaign workers, particularly those with development experice, are directly transferable to charitable work.
As I said, I am sure that everyone paid by the Foundation was performing Foundation work.
-------------------------------------------------------
> All you have to do is look at the list of names
> that appear on both rosters. One, in particular,
> should jump out immediately. Only an idiot (you)
> wouldn't see/admit it.
What do you suppose people who work on projects (like political campaigns) do for work when there are no projects to work on? They get other, temporary, jobs. The skills of seasoned campaign workers, particularly those with development experice, are directly transferable to charitable work.
As I said, I am sure that everyone paid by the Foundation was performing Foundation work.
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
That's absurd!
()
Date: June 16, 2015 05:19PM
XVKyD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whether they perform "foundation duties" isn't
> really the issue...
No? Then why did you focus on it?
> The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more
> than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013
> but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
>
> Some of the tens of millions in administrative
> costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including
> aid workers and health professionals around the
> world.
Paying aid workers and health professionals around the world is direct aid.
> Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits,
> recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation
> because its "atypical business model... doesn’t
> meet our criteria."
Which obviously is the Foundation's problem, right?
> Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions
> about the Clinton Foundation's tax filings in the
> wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded
> influence for donations.
>
>
> In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea
> Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey &
> Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation.
> He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits
> and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for
> just five months' work in 2013, tax filings show.
> Less than a year later, his salary increased to
> $395,000, according to a report in Politico.
In the world of charity CEOs, $395k is not an exorbitant salary.
> Nine other executives received salaries over
> $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.
The Foundation has over 2,000 employees, just 11 of whom make over $100k? That's absurd!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whether they perform "foundation duties" isn't
> really the issue...
No? Then why did you focus on it?
> The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more
> than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013
> but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
>
> Some of the tens of millions in administrative
> costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including
> aid workers and health professionals around the
> world.
Paying aid workers and health professionals around the world is direct aid.
> Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits,
> recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation
> because its "atypical business model... doesn’t
> meet our criteria."
Which obviously is the Foundation's problem, right?
> Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions
> about the Clinton Foundation's tax filings in the
> wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded
> influence for donations.
>
>
> In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea
> Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey &
> Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation.
> He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits
> and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for
> just five months' work in 2013, tax filings show.
> Less than a year later, his salary increased to
> $395,000, according to a report in Politico.
In the world of charity CEOs, $395k is not an exorbitant salary.
> Nine other executives received salaries over
> $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.
The Foundation has over 2,000 employees, just 11 of whom make over $100k? That's absurd!
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
79Yke
()
Date: June 16, 2015 05:47PM
Skills are directly transferable Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> campaign bench Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All you have to do is look at the list of names
> > that appear on both rosters. One, in
> particular,
> > should jump out immediately. Only an idiot
> (you)
> > wouldn't see/admit it.
>
> What do you suppose people who work on projects
> (like political campaigns) do for work when there
> are no projects to work on? They get other,
> temporary, jobs. The skills of seasoned campaign
> workers, particularly those with development
> experice, are directly transferable to charitable
> work.
>
Jobs with the Clintons. In anticipation of a future Presidential run and paid for with charity funds.
> As I said, I am sure that everyone paid by the
> Foundation was performing Foundation work.
Again whether they're doing some undefined "Foundation work" is not the issue.
-------------------------------------------------------
> campaign bench Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All you have to do is look at the list of names
> > that appear on both rosters. One, in
> particular,
> > should jump out immediately. Only an idiot
> (you)
> > wouldn't see/admit it.
>
> What do you suppose people who work on projects
> (like political campaigns) do for work when there
> are no projects to work on? They get other,
> temporary, jobs. The skills of seasoned campaign
> workers, particularly those with development
> experice, are directly transferable to charitable
> work.
>
Jobs with the Clintons. In anticipation of a future Presidential run and paid for with charity funds.
> As I said, I am sure that everyone paid by the
> Foundation was performing Foundation work.
Again whether they're doing some undefined "Foundation work" is not the issue.
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
Cankle Queen
()
Date: June 16, 2015 05:57PM
Alright, don't hurt yourself Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Alright, don't hurt yourself. I know how fragile
> you right-wingers are...
>
> Do you have evidence that staffers paid by the
> Foundation did not perform any Foundation duties?
It's the fucking Clinton's you douche nozzle. Everything they have ever been involved in is nefarious and usually criminal to some degree. They are worse than the TV preachers.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Alright, don't hurt yourself. I know how fragile
> you right-wingers are...
>
> Do you have evidence that staffers paid by the
> Foundation did not perform any Foundation duties?
It's the fucking Clinton's you douche nozzle. Everything they have ever been involved in is nefarious and usually criminal to some degree. They are worse than the TV preachers.
Re: Clintons charge big fees to small groups
Posted by:
EbLCD
()
Date: June 16, 2015 06:56PM
That's absurd! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> XVKyD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whether they perform "foundation duties" isn't
> > really the issue...
>
> No? Then why did you focus on it?
I didn't. You did. Simply because they are performing some undefined administrative "foundation duties" doesn't make the poor comparative allocation of funds to their actual mission any better or that they are political associates any less.
>
>
> > The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more
> > than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013
> > but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
> >
> > Some of the tens of millions in administrative
> > costs finance more than 2,000 employees,
> including
> > aid workers and health professionals around the
> > world.
>
> Paying aid workers and health professionals around
> the world is direct aid.
>
No, it's not actually. It's overhead and administrative expense. This isn't, for example, paying doctors providing services to some village. It's, for example, paying someone to organize an outreach program to doctors. And it still works out to be only $30 of $140 million.
> > Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits,
> > recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation
> > because its "atypical business model...
> doesn’t
> > meet our criteria."
>
> Which obviously is the Foundation's problem,
> right?
When Charity Navigator, as well as other similar groups, is one of the primary groups doing such ratings across a wide variety of charities with all sorts of models, it's the Foundation's problem.
> > Other nonprofit experts are asking hard
> questions
> > about the Clinton Foundation's tax filings in
> the
> > wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded
> > influence for donations.
> >
> >
> > In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of
> Chelsea
> > Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey
> &
> > Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton
> Foundation.
> > He took home nearly $275,000 in salary,
> benefits
> > and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for
> > just five months' work in 2013, tax filings
> show.
> > Less than a year later, his salary increased to
> > $395,000, according to a report in Politico.
>
> In the world of charity CEOs, $395k is not an
> exorbitant salary.
Median salary for CEOs of charitable organizations is $120,396. For the Northeast, the highest, it's $148,250. For large organizations it's $256,143.
And apparently you missed the stories about how poorly managed it was.
>
> > Nine other executives received salaries over
> > $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.
>
> The Foundation has over 2,000 employees, just 11
> of whom make over $100k? That's absurd!
No, that's only executive compensation. e.g., Frederick Poust, Director, Sponsors & Marketing was paid $464,229. The 2,000 includes part-time and temp employment as well. And doesn't include various crony consulting arrangements.
8 of 11 are men btw, with women paid 72 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts.
-------------------------------------------------------
> XVKyD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whether they perform "foundation duties" isn't
> > really the issue...
>
> No? Then why did you focus on it?
I didn't. You did. Simply because they are performing some undefined administrative "foundation duties" doesn't make the poor comparative allocation of funds to their actual mission any better or that they are political associates any less.
>
>
> > The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more
> > than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013
> > but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
> >
> > Some of the tens of millions in administrative
> > costs finance more than 2,000 employees,
> including
> > aid workers and health professionals around the
> > world.
>
> Paying aid workers and health professionals around
> the world is direct aid.
>
No, it's not actually. It's overhead and administrative expense. This isn't, for example, paying doctors providing services to some village. It's, for example, paying someone to organize an outreach program to doctors. And it still works out to be only $30 of $140 million.
> > Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits,
> > recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation
> > because its "atypical business model...
> doesn’t
> > meet our criteria."
>
> Which obviously is the Foundation's problem,
> right?
When Charity Navigator, as well as other similar groups, is one of the primary groups doing such ratings across a wide variety of charities with all sorts of models, it's the Foundation's problem.
> > Other nonprofit experts are asking hard
> questions
> > about the Clinton Foundation's tax filings in
> the
> > wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded
> > influence for donations.
> >
> >
> > In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of
> Chelsea
> > Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey
> &
> > Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton
> Foundation.
> > He took home nearly $275,000 in salary,
> benefits
> > and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for
> > just five months' work in 2013, tax filings
> show.
> > Less than a year later, his salary increased to
> > $395,000, according to a report in Politico.
>
> In the world of charity CEOs, $395k is not an
> exorbitant salary.
Median salary for CEOs of charitable organizations is $120,396. For the Northeast, the highest, it's $148,250. For large organizations it's $256,143.
And apparently you missed the stories about how poorly managed it was.
>
> > Nine other executives received salaries over
> > $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.
>
> The Foundation has over 2,000 employees, just 11
> of whom make over $100k? That's absurd!
No, that's only executive compensation. e.g., Frederick Poust, Director, Sponsors & Marketing was paid $464,229. The 2,000 includes part-time and temp employment as well. And doesn't include various crony consulting arrangements.
8 of 11 are men btw, with women paid 72 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts.