We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
In terms of donations, the Clintons were laundering a lot of the money through Canada, because the law there doesn't require donors to be identified there. So the payoffs are madee as gifts to a Canadian shell chairty, that "charity" then transfers the money to the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Foundation simply reports the money as coming from the Canadian charity without having to list the actual "donors."
It's a common game. You give your friends jobs to go places and advocate, or meet with important people, and tell foreigners what to do. Conferences, universities, journalists, NGO's - it adds up. So many people to tell what to do! If they aren't paid a lot of money to have nice clothes and drivers and take people to dinner, they won't have any credibility.
Assistant Village Idiot
Based on those figures, the average salary was $71.683 per employee. Would be extremely interesting to find out just who made what, and just who is on the payroll - young Chelsea, for instance.
Fair Analysis: It took 486 (886?) people who are paid $34.8 million and $91.3 million in fees and expenses to give away $5.1 MILLION.
Most of the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation is done by their own employees; consequently direct grants represent only a small part of their spending, while salaries are a large part of their spending. Staff train rural farmers in Africa, work to provide access to seed and markets, provide technological expertise on energy to people without access to the grid, and help provide access to HIV drugs to millions of people.
There is no evidence of self-dealing on the part of the Clintons. The Clintons have provided 20-years of their tax returns. The Clinton Foundation records are public. Experts who have studied the Clinton Foundation give it a high charitable rating.
Hold on there. The charity watchdogs do not make a determination of whether the money spent on "programs" qualify as charity under any usual definition, so long as it meets a technical definition. That's very nice - it is certainly better than not spending it on programs - but the "programs" are as I noted above: jobs for friends to travel on. You can call those activities charity if you want to, but a lot of people would disagree. It doesn't mean that the Clintons are doing anything illegal (at least in this case), but it does shine a light on what these charitable activities actually are.
They aren't the only ones. It's a common game, as I said.
Assistant Village Idiot: The charity watchdogs do not make a determination of whether the money spent on "programs" qualify as charity under any usual definition, so long as it meets a technical definition.
Of course it has to meet the technical definition, which is spending on charitable causes. Administrative personnel are not counted in charitable spending. Foundation staff train rural farmers in Africa, work to provide access to seed and markets, provide technological expertise on energy to people without access to the grid, and help supply access drugs for diseases such as HIV and malaria to millions of people.