Reply With Quote
Paul Slanders Clinton
AP Presents Blatant Falsehood About Clinton Charity As An Open Question
He condemned Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose family foundation has raised more than $30 million for Haiti since the 2010 earthquake.
"To me the most disgusting thing about the Clinton foundation is almost none of their money went to charity," Paul said, suggesting that only 6 percent of the Clinton Global Initiative's revenue went to charitable grants.
Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, [Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch] said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That's the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services -- $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
We can't vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work. [FactCheck.org, 6/19/15]
Overall, the foundation spends about 89 percent of its money on its charitable mission, according to the independent American Ins ute of Philanthropy. Based on that analysis, the watchdog group gave the foundation a rating of A for 2013, on a scale that goes to A-plus. Charity Navigator, the other leading group that rates charities, recently put the foundation on a "watch list" because of the negative press that has surrounded it. (That group has not issued a rating for the Clinton Foundation, saying the foundation's structure is too complex to grade.) [Washington Post, 6/2/15]
When most people in the charitable world think of foundations, they think of organizations that give away a lot of money in the form of grants to others who go out and do good works. The Clinton foundation works differently -- it keeps its money in house and hires staff to carry out its own humanitarian programs.
[...]
To offer some context, spending 88 percent of expenses on charitable programs, as the Clinton foundation says it does, would actually be pretty good by industry standards. Parsons said the average reported across all organizations in the National Center for Charitable Statistics is 81 percent -- equal to the Clinton Foundation's rate on its own -- and the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance suggests a minimum of 65 percent. "The foundation exceeds that," [Linda Parsons, an associate professor of accounting at the University of Alabama's Culverhouse College of Commerce] said. [PolitiFact.com, 4/29/15]
Fox News: Experts Say Clinton Foundation's Charitable Spending Percentage Is "Very Good." Fox News correspondent Eric Shawn debunked his colleagues' attacks on Clinton Foundation spending, reporting that claims that the foundation gives roughly 10 percent of its money raised to charitable endeavors is "actually incredibly misleading":
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ton-cha/205059
MediaMatters
