As someone in the business, this isn’t a bad breakdown. There are differences between charities that directly fund basic services (they should have low overhead) and those that work in providing expertise, advocacy, and partnership building (which will likely have larger overheads.)
The Clinton Foundation, for example led negotiations with drug manufacturers to provide low markup antiretroviral drugs to the countries hit hardest with HIV. This has saved millions of lives, saved countless children from becoming orphans, and kept millions of workers productive and in the economy.
But the actual work involved in that was probably a lot of glad-handing with drug executives- lots of salaries, lots of travel and lots of overhead.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say the Bushes were obliged to the Saudis. The fact is that all recent Presidents, Democrat or Republican, have been way too nice to the Saudis given their horrifying human rights record. We embargo nations like Iran and (until recently) Cuba. No one linked to politics would take money from the government of Iran or North Korea. So why Saudi Arabia? How can being so friendly to them possibly be justified?
I certainly agree that the strong influence of money on American politics is lamentable. Donations after a Presidency are often quid-pro-quos for favors during the Presidency. With the Clintons possibly going back to the White House, donors get a two-for. I find it disgusting, whether real corruption is involved or not.
(But, like most rationalists, I will support whoever the Democrats nominate in 2016, and favor whichever Democratic contender is most likely to win the General Election. Romney is the closest thing to a sane candidate the GOP might present, and he also has an inappropriate relationship to money.)
Well I’m doubtful of the actual charitability of the Clintons, so I wouldn’t tend to think that they’d care too much one way or the other as to who did or didn’t contribute to their charity, if the money was actually just getting boxed up and sent to Africa. Only if they, personally, were getting something out of it, via some charity-facade-political-bribery-laundering-scheme, that the whole thing would constitute a conflict of interest.
No, it’s not. It’s SoS Clinton’s job to aquire such “other information” and determine whether the people/groups are good.
Judging them good based on that single piece of information is flawed, as you readily admit later in your post. In fact it’s a worse indicator of “goodness” than any other piece of information, since it stands out as the best option for someone not genuinely “good” seeking to curry favour.
Bill’s speaking fees went dramatically up when Hillary became secretary of state, and the same people that pay his fees and donate to the Clinton foundation are the ones that Hillary makes deals with in the state department. In the process a Russian company wound up controlling 20% of US uranium reserves.
This seems like a major conflict of interest to me involving hundreds of millions of dollars. The McDonnells got about $150,000 worth of gifts, no real favors from the Governor were proven, and they were still convicted for it. How the Clintons are beyond oversight and indictment is beyond me.
Getting back on topic, and using the same source, a Politifact article about the Clinton Foundation itself. They explain why so little money is spent on grants, and why Rush Limbaugh is mostly full of hot air when he speaks about it…
There is still of conflict of interest if 100% of the money goes to the hungry and impoverished. Hillary wants the Clinton foundation to raise money, by donating to the foundation, the foreign governments are giving Hillary what she wants. Thus the conflict of interest arises between what is best for the US and what is best for Hillary. Not all benefits are monetary.
Um, if all that money goes to the hungry and impoverished, how is that dismissable as merely “what Hillary wants”? And how is it not “what is best for the US” too - don’t we all want that?
You’re *really *straining to find something here.
Czarcasm, I’m shocked to learn of Limbaugh lying about the Clintons.
Post 24 does not address the issue. According to the office of government ethics and conflict of interest applies when an employee directly participates in an activity in an official capacity that could directly benefit an organization in which the employee is a part of. Hillary Clinton is a part of the Clinton Foundation and she worked directly on matters of interests to governments that the foundation is trying to get money from. It is therefore a conflict of interest.
I don’t really care about the conflict of interest-that is what Washington is about-buying and selling access to powerful politicians. What does concern me is the paltry output for all this money-what sense does it make to contribute to a “charity” that eats up 85% of its income in “expenses”? how can you justify such a bogus scheme? The CF travel budget is astounding-is it reasonable for such high expenses in a charity?
What we all want is for the Secretary of State and the president to only represent the interests of the United States. If she is biased toward a nation that gives millions to her foundation, then she is not doing her job and is depriving the nation of a secretary of state or president that is acting solely in America’s best interests. Whether they are spending the money on food for starving kids or hookers for Bill is immaterial to the conflict of interest.
If I bribe a cop to not arrest me, does it make it okay if the cop gives the money to charity?