WaPo: Clintons' "Charitable" Tax Deductions Went to Clinton Foundation, for Several Years:

[amborin]

Most of Clintons' Charitable Donations Went to Family Foundation


By Matthew Mosk

Sunday, April 6, 2008; Page A09

Bill Clinton's book "Giving" devotes a great deal of space to the charitable habits of the world's wealthiest inhabitants, and it details some of his own efforts on behalf of AIDS patients and victims of natural calamities.
This Story

TAX WRITE-OFFS ON $109 MILLION: Most of Clintons' Charitable Donations Went to Family Foundation
What Would $109 Million Buy?

But it was only on Friday afternoon, when his wife's presidential campaign released family tax returns for the past eight years, that the world got a glimpse at how he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) have managed the tough kitchen-table decisions about how to parcel out their own wealth -- including the $6.3 million Bill Clinton received as his "Giving" advance.

After earning more than $109 million over eight years, the Clintons took tax write-offs for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. In most of those years, that money was donated to the Clinton Family Foundation...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/05/ST2008040502593.html

[tonyt53]

1. So? And your point is? They could control where it went. Many charities are shams.

[insta8er]

14. "Many charities are shams..." You are so right! LOL

[Kelvin Mace]

33. You give them eyes, but they cannot see...

"Many charities are shams."

Indeed.

[Thinkingabout]

2. What is the problem with them selecting the charity of their choice? Yes

Both have given speeches and donated the money to charity and they appear to have a passion for the CGI. Are you told which charity to donate?

[Hoyt]

5. Nothing wrong with it. Money went to worthy causes.

[grasswire]

11. only 10 percent of revenue actually went to charitable cause

The rest is fluff and slush.

[Hoyt]

12. Their foundation actually does the work rather than just donating money.

What exactly has the Sanders' "Foundation" done for people, worldwide?

[Luminous Animal]

17. Building luxury hotels in devastated broke to the bones Haiti.

[Hoyt]

20. I think the Foundation did more than that. True they haven't solved century old problems, but

they've helped more than anyone else, including Saners.

[grasswire]

18. ridiculous comparison

He has no interest in building a money laundering, power-grabbing conglomerate.

[Sparkly]

13. Debunked repeatedly.

You know that.

[grasswire]

19. cite?

thanks

[Sparkly]

23. funny.

Yeah I could pull it back up for you, but you're supposedly more plugged-in than I am. (Aren't you the news writer?) Let me know if you get stuck.

By the way, if you need me to prove the moon landing isn't a hoax, I can get around to that, too.

[grasswire]

26. well, we could just agree on the numbers in the chart below.

13 percent to charitable work.

Not good enough

[yourpaljoey]

3. Thank GOD she chose the right person to head this up!!!

Ol' Dirty Bastard (Now Dirt McGirt) has all the infos you need.

[NWCorona]

8. Wu Tang is for the children.

[AzDar]

4. K & R

[MgtPA]

6. Just like Romney's charitable donations (tax deductions) to the Mormon church.

[scscholar]

7. Better than a church!

Geez.

[Progressive dog]

9. April 6, 2008 was a while ago

and it really isn't much of a story. Most people will choose to donate where they believe it will do the most good for causes they support.
That would be why they set up their own charity.

[NWCorona]

10. That "other" tho

[Sparkly]

15. FAKE. I call BS on this.

Grants are not the one and only form of spending in charities, and the apples-apples comparison in this chart is bogus.

What's your source?

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Ok ok, foundations is one of the ways to manage wealth these days

to use a charitable description, that and off-shores. So color me surprised. They are behaving like any member of that economic class. Yeah, yeah the crap I read.

[Sparkly]

21. They are helping people around the world.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Yes and that does not detract my point that foundations are a tool to manage wealth

do some reading.

It is nice and helpful

https://www.northerntrust.com/

http://www.famanagement.com/

Private Foundations These can be set up — again, under any name — to further a passion, but they're subject to stringent rules prohibiting self-dealing. ""Before 1969," Zuccarini says, "people were setting up these private foundations and using them just like their bank — they could park money there, and largely do whatever they wanted with it." Private foundations for art collections raise particularly bright red flags. If a Degas, say, is donated to a foundation, it better not end up on loan hanging over the donor's fireplace.

http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a880/how-the-wealthy-hide-assets/

Foundations are, and have been, together with LLCs, trusts and off shores, a way to manage assets. This is not the Clintons, this is a way of life among the very wealthy and the moderately wealthy

[Sparkly]

25. They can be.

BUT, like many others, the Clinton Foundation does good work.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Ok here is a good read for you

and I promise, it mentions no names

The Hidden Wealth of Nations. Go to the kindle store, get it, read it... it will tell you why this hiding of wealth to the tune of depending who you read, anywhere from 12 to 16 trillion world wide, is a problem. I give two fucks whether they claim to do good work or not at this point, and that goes for the Gates, Clinton, it could be the Kind Saud foundation for all I care. They all need to have strict rules to prevent the sloshing of funds and hiding taxes.

For the record, the Obama administration has taken SOME initial steps to stop this crap, and so have the Brits.

[amborin]

22. new troubles? according to this:

A Wall Street whistleblower has found a new target for investigation of financial irregularities, and it’s bad news for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Financial advisor Charles Ortel has taken on the Clinton Foundation and says that based on the records he’s found, the organization has been operating in a “boldly illegal” fashion, going as far as to say that “this is a charity fraud.”

Ortel has spent 15 months looking at public records, donor disclosures, and tax filings for all of the Foundation’s projects, including the Clinton Global Initiative, and the Clinton Health Access Initiative. Ortel plans to release 40 reports on what he found on his website, and he claims those reports will prove that the Clinton Foundation has never had to comply with legal requirements to verify their financial claims with independent accountants. Because of this, there is no way to trace billions of dollars sent to the Clinton foundation since 2000 because of the noncompliance with state laws regarding fundraising registration, disclosure requirements, and auditing rules.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3074927/wall-street-whistleblower-calls-clinton-foundation-charity-fraud/

many posters cite this site, so I assume it's ok

[grasswire]

28. that report is widely reported recently. nt

[riversedge]

29. Ah, another Hillary smear from the Inquisitr

[Jitter65]

31. so what? It is a legal charitable organization that does good work all over the world and there is

nothing illegal about it.

[Live and Learn]

34. It is a sham like most of the charitable organizations. Tax payers are the ones that really pay

since the organizations are tax havens for the rich who get a big tax break for the donations which then go to pay family and friends to administer the paltry 'aid' left over.

[Orangepeel]

32. this is a stupid criticism.

There are likely valid criticisms of the foundation, but this isn't one of them. If somebody sets up a foundation that is designed to support a cause or causes they want to support, of course that's where most of their charitable contributions go.

[mhatrw]

35. Giving money to your own charity is a well-worn tax dodge among the top 0.1%. nt

[dana_b]

36. yeah, they're SO giving

"In recent years, there were gifts that generated good will in ways that were potentially helpful to Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Hillary Clinton

snip

The family foundation also gave $25,000 to support the McGovern Library and Center for Leadership and Public Service in Mitchell, S.D., in early 2007. Later in the year the center's eponym, the former Democratic presidential nominee George S. McGovern, said he would endorse Clinton for president"

and so on. Pay to play. It may be "legal" but it's slimy and self serving. They absolutely disgust me.