Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

[NYC_SKP]

8. Some interesting figures that came from simple research about CGI:

I work with nonprofits and thought I'd look up the numbers for CGI.

You know, some orgs send a lot of their revenue on direct assistance while others spend a lot on salaries and expenses.

Only 32% of CGI revenue was spend on grants paid out.

Reported prior year figures reported on their 2013 Form 990:

Revenue: $28,221,924

Grants paid: $8,975,872

Salaries, benefits: $6,949,577

Other expenses: $12,296,668

Less than 32% of the revenue was spent on grants paid out.
Over 24% was spent on salaries and benefits.
"Other expenses" accounted for almost 44%.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/271/551/2013-271551550-0b0d6513-9.pdf

GuideStar couldn't provide a Schedule A, which would have listed such details as salaries.

Chelsea V Clinton is listed as a director, but no salary is described, that's often on Schedules A and J.

Personally, when I know that United Way puts out 65-75% of their revenue in grants and CGI can only spit out 32%, it's a red flag.

And when United Way grants paid out are always well above the salaries plus overhead but CGI salaries + expenses are DOUBLE what the grants are, that's a red flag.

There is the appearance that CGI is a money pit that does some good but at a very high cost for doing that good.

Technically, it's legal to have a foundation that takes in money and all they do is fly around and make presentations and shake hands.

The numbers surprised me, but then it fits the pattern.

If the party isn't going to vet candidates, and the media isn't going to vet candidates, then it's up to us, I guess.