Bill and Hillary released their tax returns on Friday. Much has been written about the Clintons earning over $100 million since leaving the white house. Not so much has been written about the $10.2 million they donated to charity. That's till the WSJ examined this aspect of the Clinton tax return further.
Meanwhile, the Clintons also made liberal use of the charitable deduction, claiming $10.2 million in charitable giving over the eight years. Intriguingly, nearly all the donations went to the Clinton Family Foundation, which has disbursed only half the money. The Clintons can thus use the foundation for, er, strategic giving, such as the $100,000 it donated last year to a local South Carolina library - the day after Mrs. Clinton debated in that key primary state. There are other examples of such politically targeted philanthropy, and it's worth noting that most of the foundation's disbursements came only after Mrs. Clinton announced her Presidential run.Who would ever think the Clintons would use their charitable contributions in a political way? Want to bet most of what's not expended now would be used during the fall if Hillary won the nomination. The donor list, if it is ever released, will probably show a number of conflict of interests.Similar conflict-of-interest questions apply to the separate William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, for which the couple has so far refused to release a list of donors. Such a list could contain more of the likes of Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra, who took Mr. Clinton along on a trip to Kazakhstan as a character reference, won a Kazakh mining concession, and gave more than $30 million to the foundation. The Clintons have an obligation to let voters see who their foundation donors are.
Its legal, but gives you more insight into this couple. Wonder why I voted for Obama in the Florida Democratic primary?
Hat tip- Betsy
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Hillary Clinton, Politicians
Comments (6)
Money laundering? No, not ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | April 7, 2008 2:16 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Money laundering? No, not from the most ethical presidency in history.
1. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | April 7, 2008 2:16 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on April 7, 2008 14:16
2. Posted by Brian | April 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
Who would ever think the Clintons would use their charitable contributions in a political way?
Yeah, the Bushes would never do that. They only use charitable contributions for personal financial gain.
2. Posted by Brian | April 7, 2008 2:58 PM |
Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on April 7, 2008 14:58
3. Posted by Oyster | April 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Brian - please read again "Former" First Lady Barbara Bush. That's the one who used to be first lady, oh, about 16 years ago. The one who isn't running for political office.
And again you're not reading your own links. From your article:
It then goes on to explain that other donors had their donations earmarked as well. Let's round them all up and have them ridiculed by Brian.
3. Posted by Oyster | April 7, 2008 4:53 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on April 7, 2008 16:53
4. Posted by Brian | April 7, 2008 5:44 PM | Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Becker said she wasn't at liberty to divulge how much money the Bush family gave to the hurricane funds, but said the "rest of their donation was not earmarked for anything."
Great. So by comparison, let's see a report on how much of the Clintons' $5.1 million in charitable donations was not political.
It then goes on to explain that other donors had their donations earmarked as well. Let's round them all up and have them ridiculed by Brian.
I'm as interested in that as you are of rounding up the recipients of the Clintons' $5.1 million of other donations and lauding the Clintons for it.
Not that I give a crap where the Bushes or Clintons spend their charity. But you look silly picking out single incidents and making a conspiracy out of it.
Oooh, she donated to a library the day after *gasp* debating in the same state as the library! So, what, are you saying she expected the library to doctor the video of the debate or something?
We have enough problems without people going looking for kerfuffles to be outraged about.
4. Posted by Brian | April 7, 2008 5:44 PM |
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on April 7, 2008 17:44
5. Posted by Oyster | April 8, 2008 6:35 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Not that I give a crap where the Bushes or Clintons spend their charity."
No. Of course you don't.
5. Posted by Oyster | April 8, 2008 6:35 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on April 8, 2008 06:35
6. Posted by Flashman | April 8, 2008 3:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
$10.2 million? That's a hell of lot of used Presidential undercrackers.
6. Posted by Flashman | April 8, 2008 3:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on April 8, 2008 15:57