# Any truth to this DOJ "Slush fund" claim? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 4, 2017, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361 "2017-03-04T03:25:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/1 "2017-03-04T03:25:25Z")
Currently a right wing talking point: > **[GOP wants to eliminate shadowy DOJ slush fund bankrolling leftist groups](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-wants-to-eliminate-shadowy-doj-slush-fund-bankrolling-leftist-groups)** > > The Obama administration funneled billions of dollars to activist organizations through a Department of Justice slush fund scheme, according to congressional investigators. So I take anything on Foxnews with a grain of salt so large it’s actually a boulder. Whats the straight dope on this? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/2 "2017-03-04T03:50:17Z")
It’s legit. The DOJ has brought discrimination cases and then offered to settle for an amount that makes paying for a defense a more costly option. The catch is that the DOJ has settled in exchange for making contributions to third party groups, not necessarily the injured party. Critics argue that any settlements should be paid to the government and/or to the injured party and that by permitting settlement payments to third parties this subverts Congressional oversight. This is not just a Obama thing. It’s been going on at least since GWB’s administration. See [this opinion piece](http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-justice-departments-third-party-payment-practice-the-antideficiency-act-and-legal-ethics) in the Federalist Society for a bit of elaboration and some good cites. Remember, if this is allowed to stand then each succeeding administration could let the DOJ settle cases contingent on “donations” to politically favored groups. Anyone want a housing discrimination case under the Trump administration settled with a large donation to the NRA? ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/3 "2017-03-04T04:54:48Z")
Ok interesting, but does anyone have a list of which third party groups the settlement cases have donated money to and how much? If they’re donating to non political non profit organisations thats a rather different thing from a “slush fund”. Also does the DOJ choose which third party it goes to or can the Bank etc in question when settling the case decide who the money goes to? That makes a big difference as well. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/4 "2017-03-04T06:03:07Z")
Not sure if there is a comprehensive list out there… In October 2016 Senator Chuck Grassely wrote a [letter](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016-10-27%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20Lynch%20(DOJ%20Mortgage%20Settlements).pdf) to Attorney General Lynch in which he stated > [@](#): > > "The Department handpicked the third-party organizations—none of which have suffered harm—that could receive payments. The Department made its selections through a non-public and unaccountable process that is void of any opportunity for oversight from Congress or transparency to the public. > … > the list of government-approved recipients includes organizations from which Congress cut funding in 2011, such as the National Council of La Raza, the National Urban League, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, and NeighborWorks America. > … So Grassley’s complaint, at least, is that the DOJ chose the recipients of the “donations” in respect to the settlements the letter referred to. (Settlements with Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank settlements generating at least $150 million in direct donations and $490 million more indirectly diverted to third parties.) Further, Grassely’s complaint is that the DOJ chose recipients of settlement funds which were organizations which Congress specifically chose not to fund. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/5 "2017-03-04T06:13:55Z")
I doubt its possible to find the settlements which result in donations. [grants.gov](http://grants.gov) is a central place for information about grants that the video was about [https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/learn-grants/grant-making-agencies/department-of-justice.html](https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/learn-grants/grant-making-agencies/department-of-justice.html) ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/6 "2017-03-04T06:38:54Z")
Ok yes I can see this is a real issue that is “problematic”… but calling it “Obama’s slush fund” is 100 percent inaccurate. Obama has no control over the money now, its already been donated. And a slush fund is a fund for illicit purposes, usually for bribery or personal gain. So far from the list of organisations that received payment, none of them are advocacy groups for Democrats. They’re non profit organisations that help lower income people, no matter what their political affiliation is. Lastly GWB used this process as well, so it’s been abused by both parties…not exclusive to Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/7 "2017-03-04T07:17:14Z")
Per an [article](http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510719895-legislation-would-prohibit-doj-settlement-terms-that-require-donations-to-third-parties) on Legal News Line about a proposed law banning such third party donations in settlements… [ul] [li]The US Coast Guard Academy Alumni Association was the beneficiary of a $1 million donation to settle a Clean Water Act violation case brought against a wastewater treatment plant in 2006 under the Bush administration.[/li] [li]The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation received $50,000 “community service payment” to settle a case brought against Gibson Guitars in 2012.[/li][/ul] Some settlement agreements provided such favorable terms that a "donation"was all but certain. In some instances the DOJ offered to reduce a portion of the agreed upon penalty on a 2 for 1 basis if the accused company would contribute to certain third party beneficiaries. So an agreed $1 million penalty that would need to be paid to the government becomes $500 thousand going to some third party organization. ---
**Author:** ![davida03801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5e925/32.png) [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/8 "2017-03-04T12:23:18Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Ok yes I can see this is a real issue that is “problematic”… but calling it “Obama’s slush fund” is 100 percent inaccurate. There is a long held standard that if it happens on your watch, its your problem. It happened on Obama’s watch so his name can be attached to it. Why does that not apply here? Personally I think the practice should be done away with completely. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/9 "2017-03-04T13:37:12Z")
A tangential issue, but I found this interesting: some states allow an education tax credit, which allows corporations to make donations to non-profit school voucher organizations in lieu of paying state taxes. The non-profits then can use the donated funds for religious education programs that might not survive scrutiny if the funds had been provided by the state government. Summary here: > **[Under DeVos, Here's How School Choice Might Work](https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/01/31/512507538/under-devos-heres-how-school-choice-might-work)** > > "Tax credit scholarships" are a twist on vouchers. Florida's program is one of the largest in the country, serving 92,000 students. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/10 "2017-03-04T14:20:27Z")
> [@davida03801](#): > > There is a long held standard that if it happens on your watch, its your problem. It happened on Obama’s watch so his name can be attached to it. Why does that not apply here? Yes, he’s responsible for what happened on his watch. However, for a media organization to omit a relevant fact, namely that it was done not just during the Obama administration, but also during the Bush administration, can be seen as misleading. If just Obama did it, that’s one thing. If it’s been done by at least two different administrations, of different political parties, that puts a different light on it. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2017, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/11 "2017-03-05T10:29:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > A tangential issue, but I found this interesting: some states allow an education tax credit, which allows corporations to make donations to non-profit school voucher organizations in lieu of paying state taxes. The non-profits then can use the donated funds for religious education programs that might not survive scrutiny if the funds had been provided by the state government. Summary here: > > [Under Betsy DeVos, Here's How School Choice Might Work : NPR Ed : NPR](http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/01/31/512507538/under-devos-heres-how-school-choice-might-work) Wait, in the countries I know (Australia and the UK) any donations to a registered charity by a corporation are 100 percent tax deductible. Is that not true in the US? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2017, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/12 "2017-03-05T12:46:40Z")
In the US, charitable contributions are fully tax deductible, but that term may have a different meaning here. If I donate $1,000 to a charity, my income for tax purposes is $1,000 lower. This means I save roughly $250 on my tax bill (assuming I’m in the 25% tax bracket). Here, a tax credit is a special benefit that provides for a offset of actual taxes. They are rarer, but one example is that if you buy an electric car, you get a $7,500 tax credit that wipes out that much of your tax bill. I’ve never heard of any other program in the US that allows taxpayers to choose whether they pay taxes or pay someone else with a dollar-for-dollar elimination of one’s tax bill. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2017, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/13 "2017-03-05T13:01:36Z")
“100% tax deductible” is not the same thing as “in lieu of paying taxes”. Let’s say that your tax rate is 30%, you’re bringing in 1 million dollars, and you donate 300,000 dollars. With a regular donation, you’d subtract 300,000 from 1 million to get 700,000 dollars, and then pay 30% tax on that 700,000, or 210,000 in taxes (net take-home of 490,000 dollars). If you can make the donation in lieu of tax, however, you instead calculate your tax on 1 million, or 300,000 dollars, and then pay that money to the charity instead of to the government, for a net take-home of 700,000 dollars. Note that in the first case, making the donation will _always_ decrease your net take-home (not counting things like goodwill and marketing value from the donation). It’ll just decrease it by an amount less than the amount of the donation, because the government is effectively chipping in part by decreasing your taxes. But in the second case, the donation won’t change your take-home at all, and so as long as there’s any value at all for you in the donation itself, it’s a no-brainer. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2017, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/14 "2017-03-05T13:15:50Z")
There have always been procedures and processes that can be abused in government, as well as that can be made to look bad when they aren’t being abused, by political hacks. I tend to suspect, given the present obvious tendency of the current administration to blow all sorts of things out of proportion when it can be linked to someone in the opposition, that this is overall, an entirely bogus “scandal.” Unless and until I see those on the attack, detailing 100% of the situations, including all the instances where GOP and Trump associated organizations benefited, I’l suspect that this is just another “hey! look over there!” trick, to get back at the justice department people who are saying “no” to some of the more unconstitutional or clumsy demands by the current administration. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2017, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/15 "2017-03-05T13:29:52Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Yes, he’s responsible for what happened on his watch. > > However, for a media organization to omit a relevant fact, namely that it was done not just during the Obama administration, but also during the Bush administration, can be seen as misleading. > > If just Obama did it, that’s one thing. > > If it’s been done by at least two different administrations, of different political parties, that puts a different light on it. Point taken. But to call it “Obama’s slush fund” is to suggest that he could then use the money for any purpose, especially illegal purposes. Neither Obama nor Bush seems to have done it. That said, it seems like a bad idea. I guess it is the corporate version of community service. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/16 "2017-03-05T16:09:41Z")
> [@Isilder](#): > > I doubt its possible to find the settlements which result in donations. > > [grants.gov](http://grants.gov) is a central place for information about grants that the video was about > > [Lock](https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/learn-grants/grant-making-agencies/department-of-justice.html) It’s available… and takes some jumping through hoops to see the monies going to third parties. Let’s look at the DOJ settlement with Citibank over toxic mortgages. The settlement agreement press release is here: [Office of Public Affairs | Justice Department, Federal and State Partners Secure Record $7 Billion Global Settlement with Citigroup for Misleading Investors About Securities Containing Toxic Mortgages | United States Department of Justice](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-federal-and-state-partners-secure-record-7-billion-global-settlement) announcing a $7 billion settlement. The actual text of the settlement agreement can be reached through the link at the above link press release. Or just click here: [https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/471201471413656848428.pdf](https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/471201471413656848428.pdf) (pdf link) Most of the payments are exactly what we would hope for. Penalty to the US government and state governments, as well as means of restitution to affected persons. But skip on down to Annex 2, link at the bottom of the above mentioned press release, or just click here: [https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/649201471413721380969.pdf](https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/649201471413721380969.pdf) (pdf link) Scroll on down to page 11. Note item D where. > [@](#): > > Donations to capitalize certified Community Development Financial Institutions (“CDFIs”)20, land banks subject to state or local regulation, or community development funds administered by non-profits or local governments And see that is states: D. $1.00 payment = $2.00 Credit and Menu Item 4D Minimum = $25 million payment That is _at least_ $25 million in payment for which Citibank is getting 2:1 credit. So, who gets the money? Other banks, credit unions or community organizations who were not a part of this litigation. Per footnote 20 payment goes to certified Community Development Financial Institutions. The link of the footnote is now dead, but you can go to the [CDFI webpage](https://www.cdfifund.gov/programs-training/certification/cdfi/Pages/default.aspx) and click the link for a [list of certified organizations](https://www.cdfifund.gov/Documents/Final%20CDFI%20List%2001-31-2017.xlsx). (opens as Excel link) And item E. > [@](#): > > Donations to state-based Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA) organizations (or other statewide bar-association affiliated intermediaries) that provide funds to legal aid organizations, to be used for foreclosure prevention legal assistance and community redevelopment legal assistance Which again gets "E. $1.00 payment = $2.00 Credit " treatment. That is money going to state bar associations, legal aid organizations, etc… who were not parties to the litigation. And note just below item F… "115% Early Incentive Credit for Menu Items 4A-F " So make the payment early and get extra credit! ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-truth-to-this-doj-slush-fund-claim/781361/17 "2017-03-06T13:53:07Z")
This is not at all a ‘slush fund’ and is a common thing across different administrations and often state governments as well. The general idea is that if there’s a settlement involving a fine, it makes sense for that money to go towards making things better in the area of the violation, rather than just going into the general federal (or state) treasury (which is where a generic fine would go). So, for instance, a settlement over environmental violations might include the violater paying to purchase land and donate it to a land trust, or buying equipment for the local fire department to respond to hazardous material spills. In all cases, the violator has to agree (they can always say, “no thanks, I’ll just pay the entire amount as a fine”). There are concerns about making sure projects are appropriate, and so forth, but it’s common in many areas, and there are typically extra reviews in place. I know of at least one really good project that was turned down because it didn’t make it through the extra review, because it didn’t quite fit the narrow definition of acceptable projects. TLDR: not a ‘slush fund’, happened in multiple Republican and Democratic administrations, including at states as well as federal.