April 28, 2015 5:00 pm
Published by Michael
This is a commercial proposition.”
Those two sets of facts the underlying financial information provided to the IRS by the Clinton Foundation and the testimony of its own executive are crucial in determining whether the Clinton Foundation is primarily engaged in charitable activities. When a Clinton Executive, especially one who serves as CEO of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, openly brags that his organization’s efforts are commercial rather charitable in nature, I’m inclined to believe him.
The “Mostly False” declaration of PunditFact’s Louis Jacobson is even more fascinating given that he was not aware until I told him so that the Clinton Foundation annual report and the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings are not apples-to-apples comparisons. The annual report lumps together numerous distinct non-profit entities, whereas the tax filings were related to a single tax-exempt entity, the Clinton Foundation, also referred to as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
“I didn’t re-run your calculations, but I entirely agree that the 990s paint a different picture than what the foundation says (such as in its annual report),” Jacobson told me in his initial e-mail to me. Jacobson simply doesn’t like the implications of the fact that the Clinton Foundation spent less than 10 percent of its budgets on charitable grants in 2013. He doesn’t like the fact that the two single largest “charitable” initiatives of the Clinton Foundation by its own admission are the Clinton Presidential Library, which exists solely to put a positive spin on the 42nd president’s term in office, and the Clinton Global Initiative, which the New York Times characterized as a “glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.” If hanging out with celebrities at glitzy dinners is the height of charity, then it’s time to beatify the Kardashian sisters.
“[T]he foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house,” Jacobson writes, “and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.”
Actually, no. Fortunately, Jacobson gives us a hint as to his intent.
According to Jacobson, the notion that all non-charitable grant money must be considered as “in-house” charity expenditures “depends on trusting the Clinton foundation’s characterization of its expenditures.”