Clinton Foundation: Transparency Can Be Sold: UPDATED

Well, as you all know, the tax returns are out, and reporters, bloggers, and activists are pouring over them. The New York Times noticed something interesting:

claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy.

Now, I can understand giving to your own foundation. After all, you want to control where the money goes if you're giving that much money, and if you've got your own foundation, there's no better way to exert that control. But why did the money sit for years unused? And is it just coincidence that the money was spent right when the Clinton presidential campaign got underway?

More on transparency below the fold...

I am more than a little suspicious that most of the money was not spent when both Clintons have spoken for years about the urgency of the poverty situation for so many Americans. Just as one example, look at what was happening in New Orleans. The Clintons spoke out against inaction in New Orleans, and yet their foundation was inactive? The timing of the spending has me rankled.

And why won't the Clintons release the names of donors to the Clinton Foundation? They sold the names to InfoUSA:

ABCNews.com has learned that the Clinton Foundation sold portions of the list through a data company headed by a longtime friend and donor.

Is that the problem, we need buy transparency? Is transparency only for sale to the highest bidder?

InfoUSA has a terrible reputation regarding selling lists that target elderly people who can easily be defrauded. It has just been served with a delisting notice from NASDAQ:

InfoUSA formed a special board committee of five directors in December to respond to the SEC investigation and shareholder lawsuit, which alleges that the company misspent millions, some of it on former President Bill Clinton and U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

According to the New York Times, these are the kinds of lists sold by InfoUSA:

InfoUSA advertised lists of "Elderly Opportunity Seekers," 3.3 million older people "looking for ways to make money," and "Suffering Seniors," 4.7 million people with cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. "Oldies but Goodies" contained 500,000 gamblers over 55 years old, for 8.5 cents apiece. One list said: "These people are gullible. They want to believe that their luck can change."

Back to the Clinton Foundation, an article from the New York Times said:

donations are up 70 percent since Hillary's campaign got under way -- with two-thirds of the money coming from just 11 donors.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to know who those 11 donors are. Maybe they're people who just want to help with these global initiatives, or maybe they are peddling influence and skirting campaign finance laws... Without transparency, how can we know? If the Clintons' hands are clean, then she should want us to know.

I'd also like to know more about why the Clinton Foundation waited until around the time she announced her candidacy to start spending money when they keep talking about the urgency of poverty in this nation and around the world. What? They never heard of Katrina? And that's just one example... But the thing that really bothers me the most is that they were willing to sell their donor list to a shady company but not give it to the voters.

•  Tips, etc.

  by dawnt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:18:16 AM PDT

•  Sheeech...don't! Its a secret.

  by jamaicanblood on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:22:07 AM PDT

•  I don't care

  how the Clintons spend their money.  There are already enough reasons for me to cast my vote elsewhere without digging any further.

  by winsock on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:24:41 AM PDT

  •  Well, you should care because

    private foundations are a traditional/new avenue for sequestering money and programs from public inspection.  These eleemosynary institutions serve as vehicles for power without having to be accountable to the public.
    The Clintons have learned well from the Rockefellers.

    by hannah on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:40:31 PM PDT

    •  It's a PRIVATE foundation

      I'm sure you disagree, but just because Hillary is an elected official (U.S. Senator) does not give the public the right to know where she spends every dime of her own money.  I'm way more interested in where the money comes from -- not where it goes.  Even elected officials have a certain right to privacy -- they shouldn't have to surrender all their rights when running for public office.

      by winsock on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM PDT

•  giving to katrina relief

  and other rebuilding efforts for the gulf coast doesn't necessarily have much to do with, or much impact upon, bringing about an actual end to poverty.   for the record, i think the clintons are full of shit, but this line of argument isn't so strong.  what IS an interesting thing to pursue is large amounts of unspent money that began to be spent as the campaign got underway - potentially providing a lot of money to areas of local leaders whose support they needed/wanted, etc.. and other stuff like that.  

  by panamaniaco on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM PDT

  •  That's the point I was trying to make

    Not that they should have spent on Katrina specifically but that there are plenty of things they could have been spending on... that the timing of the spending is suspicious. Maybe I should edit that to make it more clear.

    by dawnt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:26:22 AM PDT

•  Good work Dawn!

  I didn't see this anywhere.  They're incorrigible!  Also, I believe InfoUSA is owned by their good friend Ron Burkle (or something like that) who's paid exorbitant fees to Bill (which you mentioned).

  They still manage to shock me, even when I think I've heard everything.

  by The Distillery on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:25:58 AM PDT

  •  Um, no

    Ron Burkle owns Yucaipa.  The Chairman and CEO of InfoUsa is named Vinod Gupta.

    If you're going to smear someone by association, at least make a token effort to get the associates' names straight.

    by SingularExistence on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:44:12 AM PDT

•  Sorry, but speculation

  doesn't work for me.  If the NYT or anyone else can explain to me the difference between the Clinton Foundation and the Gates Foudnation, Annenburg Foundation, Pew Charitable Trust and others, I'm open.  Is there some suggestion that the 1/2 of the foundation given to programs is somehow shady?  And 1/2 of the foundation is quite a lot as foundations go.

  You are addressing three different subjects which require three different sets of scrutiny.

  1.  Is the Clinton Foundation legitimate under U.S. law? and are the programs supported legitimate?;

  2.  Is it illegal to donate money to one's own foundation?

  3.  Is there evidence of quid pro quo re: donors -- and where is the list.

  All are legitimate areas of scrutiny, but I'm waiting for some facts -- and granted, the Clintons aren't helping themselves by not releasing the donor list.

  by gchaucer2 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:26:35 AM PDT

  •  I don't think

    anybody is suggesting anything here is illegitimate.

    But the optics of touting the high percentage of your income you give to charity (with the subtle dig at Obama's it entails) when most of it goes to your own foundation is not as generous-looking.

    But it is definitely just as generous in my book.
    Just easier to do when you make the money they are making.

    3. is the only shady part. And as you said, their stubborn refusal to reveal the names (and not even promise to do so - ever) makes it look ... suspicious.

    by doriangz on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:30:30 AM PDT

    •  Many donors

      prefer to be anonymous, or set up their donations through trusts, so they're not bombarded with solicitations.

      by SingularExistence on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:47:43 AM PDT

      •  Fair enough

        but that's the risk they took when donating to that foundation.
        Between their right to be anonymous and my right to know who gave to a future Presdident's spouse I find my right to know more important.
        The Clintons are free to give their donors' right priority and I am free to consider that particularly telling

        by doriangz on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:58:29 AM PDT

        •  Okay

          So you're saying they should either a) refuse donations from donors who prefer to remain anonymous, thus depriving the public of the benefit of those funds; or b) disrespect their donors' privacy and reveal the names so Hillary can run for president?

          I am quite sure that if they chose either of those options they would once again be accused of putting Hillary's presidential ambitions over the public good.

          by SingularExistence on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:02:22 PM PDT

          •  That's a way to put it

            I think the harm done by the lack of knowledge of potential conflict of interest is bigger than whatever harm those millionaires would get from being publicly named as a DONOR TO A CHARITY. Yeah, that would be HORRIBLE.
            Once again, I am not saying I don't see your point even if I am being snarky.
            I am saying this is a choice for the Clintons to make. They made the choice. Fine. And I am free to judge them for it.
            It is a disqualifier for being President. But I am certainly allowed to point that out as either shady (if you want to believe there is a huge smoking gun there which I dont) or just an interesting choice of priorities.

            by doriangz on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:07:02 PM PDT

            •  It is NOT a disqualifier n/t

              by doriangz on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:10:33 PM PDT

            •  So what's the quid pro quo?

              If the donations are going to the Foundation, and then, in turn, to charity, how are the Clintons personally benefiting from them? To your point, what's so HORRIBLE about taking money from millionaires to give to worthy causes?

              by SingularExistence on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:44:26 PM PDT

              •  That's the question isn't it.

                And we won't know if it's even an issue until they release the donor list. Sometimes there really is nothing there to see... but I think we should find out if there is a conflict of interest or if there isn't.

                by dawnt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:11:06 PM PDT

                •  As I said before

                  I don't particularly believe there is a quid pro quo of some sorts or that the Clintons are liars or thieves.
                  If you read my comments carefully, you know that I am uncomfortable with them protecting the privacy of their millionaire friends, even when the harm would be very limited, at the expense of transparency and clarifying people's undue suspicions.
                  That's an emphasis that bothers me because I know of a certain administration whose first instinct is always to hide or keep secrets.

                  by doriangz on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:17:08 PM PDT

          •  PS

            Remember Cheney's task force on energy ?
            Privacy of advice-givers vs public's right to know ?

            Just sayin'.

            by doriangz on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM PDT

            •  Completely different situation

              The foundation is a charitable organization, not a taxpayer-funded government entity.

              by SingularExistence on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:38:11 PM PDT

              •  It is a matter of philosophy

                I would argue a charitable foundation set up by a candidate for the Presidency and a former President are just as relevant to us citizens.
                But more importantly, as I said, we criticize them because of a choice they make which is the same Cheney made, even though the impact is different (although just the same way we have no reason to suggest Cheney was unduly influence or that Hillary would be unduly influenced, just the perception they might be is bad enough as it is, especially for a campaign who claims to have been fully vetted).
                Anyway I think it is a telling sign of what their philosophy is when public interest is faced with privacy rights of individuals close to them.
                We believe in transparency being the most important thing in most situations. They do not.
                They have fair arguments to make in that regard, some of which you defend admirably.
                But allow us to disagree strongly and criticize them for it.
                That's all.

                by doriangz on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:43:30 PM PDT

      •  Then why did they sell the list to InfoUSA?

        Every time I donate to anyone, I get a slew of requests from other charities for months to come. Anyone who has donated to anyone has gotten the same and has no expectations of privacy.

        by dawnt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:15:36 PM PDT

        •  I'm not defending the list-selling

          because I don't like getting solicitations myself. But if you read the quote you yourself posted, you will see that it says they sold "portions of the list." So, while I agree there's no expectation of privacy if you sit down, write out a check, and drop it in the mail, if you donate privately with the condition of anonymity you do have an expectation of privacy.

          by SingularExistence on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM PDT

          •  Then why not release the names of people who did

            Then why not release the names of the people who did not give on condition of anonymity? Your argument does not hold water because they haven't released any names, but they've sold at least some.

            by dawnt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:17:34 PM PDT

      •  So,

        they are protecting the donors privacy, and selling the list to infoUSA.  Maybe certain donors requested more privacy than others...

        by evdebs on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:06:58 PM PDT

        •  Well, yeah

          Since they didn't sell the entire list to InfoUSA, you could very well be right.

          by SingularExistence on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:32:58 AM PDT

  •  Foundation

    Bill Gates isn't running for President.

    What is the foundation doing with ALL that money!?

    by vet75 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:31:34 AM PDT

  •  I didn't actually speculate anything

    I laid out the facts and said that I think the voters have a right to know the answers to these questions. It's hard to speculate anything when we don't know the answers.

    by dawnt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:34:41 AM PDT

    •  Your diary is full of speculation

      "And is it just coincidence that the money was spent right when the Clinton presidential campaign got underway?"

      "Is that the problem, we need to offer them money in order to get transparency?"

      "Maybe they're people who just want to help with these global initiatives, or maybe they are peddling influence and skirting campaign finance laws... Without transparency, how can we know? If the Clintons' hands are clean, then she should want us to know."

      "If the Clintons' hands are clean, then she should want us to know."

      Sounds like speculation to me.

      by SingularExistence on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:19:09 PM PDT

      •  Big difference between questions and speculation

        Huge difference. Exactly what I said in the comment before. I did not speculate, I said these are questions that need to be answered. And everything you pasted is ahem a question.

        Maybe you aren't familiar with the definition of speculation:

        speculate /'spkjlet/
        verb [NO OBJ. ]
        1 form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence: my colleagues speculate about my private life | [WITH CLAUSE] observers speculated that the authorities wished to improve their image.
        2 invest in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss: he didn't look as though he had the money to speculate in shares.

        by dawnt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:29:03 PM PDT

        •  Oh, come on

          You clearly believe something nefarious is at hand and have phrased your theories and conjecture in question form so you can then bat your eyes and claim innocently, "Why, no! I'm just raising questions!"

          by SingularExistence on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:28:12 AM PDT

•  I was better off in 2000 than I was in 1992

  and I am now.  I suspect most people in this country can make that same statement.  And that is an important standard to use to view a president. I realize it is an applause line for Sen. Clinton, but what part of the 90's did we not like? The peace or the prosperity?  I would request that everyone here ask that question and then ask if they expect a return to that with a McCain presidency?

  Sen. Obama may make a better president than Sen. Clinton. But given the state of this country in 2000, I do not begrudge Bill Clinton and by extension Sen. Clinton making money.

  I would ask you to look at the results of President Clinton's charity work since leaving office.

  If Bill Clinton managed to make a lot of money, then good for him. Presidents tend to do that once they leave office.  

  by Dave from Oregon on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:26:56 AM PDT

  •  Nobody has a problem with him making money

    But we'd like to know where the money came from in order to determine what conflicts of interest another Clinton presidency may have. I think we have a right to know that.

    by dawnt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:35:42 AM PDT

  •  Couple of details though

    I don't begrudge Bill Clinton becoming rich either.
    However

    1. Some of it looks as if he is becoming rich just be lending his name to private interests. That's not cool to make 15M$ just for showing up.

    2. Other Presidents do make big money after leaving office. Main difference ? They are not running for anything ever again ? We gave hell to Giuliani and we should give hell to the Clintons.

    3. You are better off but do you make a hundred times what you were making then ? There is nothing weong with being rich but I find 111 millions of dollars income to be obscene, whatever you do, movie star, CEO or politician

    by doriangz on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:36:04 AM PDT

    •  The more the merrier in my opinion, but

      the ethics are in the details.

      I have no problem whatsoever with anyone making anything they can (I'm the right-leaning Independent in the room :).  Warren Buffet gave $40B to do good works after making a pile, and his success raised heaps of people with him.  

      In 2002 I started a high-tech company with some friends and we thought about getting Bill Clinton as an adviser - it would have cost us $200K to discuss the idea with him for an hour ($100K for Gore).  We didn't do either, but I don't begrudge them their prices - with names like theirs they should be a lot more expensive than, say Mark Penn, or the best lawyer money can buy.

      What I may have a problem with is giving $10M or whatever the number is to "charity" and expecting to get points for magnanimity for it: if it is primarily a tax-dodge and/or cronyistic payback for favors.  The numbers smell like they got to save a bundle on taxes (where's the Geigho Gecko when you need him?), have not done any obvious overwhelming good with it and perhaps gave a lot of really high-paying "charity" "jobs" to "friends" to indirectly pay them for doing things that they otherwise couldn't pay them for doing without looking corrupt.

      I'll reserve some slack for them until I hear more about what their private charity spent its money on.  You don't have to look far to know that the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation, as a comparison, is a fundamentally Good Thing.  Let's see if the Clinton Foundation is a Good Thing as well - or not.

      One other potential issue - Hillary got a $10M advance on a book deal, I believe (?), but made nothing like that with "It Takes a Village".  I'd like to know if that was a real business deal that the publisher thought was profitable for them, or something else.

      -cheers!

      -chris

      by chrisblask on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:56:06 AM PDT

•  The most problematic thing

  with the Clinton tax returns, at least to my sensibilities after just perusing the actual returns, is the conspicuous lack of income derived from investments.

  Here's a family that made 80 million or so in six years, and in the seventh year only had a couple hundred thousand dollars in investment income.

  The questions I have is where is all this money they made?  Is it in the Caymans?  Is it all in stock but they have never sold any of their stock in order to show up in cap gains/losses?  Is it in a checking account?

  Where is all this money the Clintons made over the years.

  by whereisboblafollette on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:28:06 AM PDT

  •  That's an excellent point n/t

    by dawnt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:36:11 AM PDT

•  That's how Americans give.

  They donate their charity money either to THEIR church, or one of THEIR personal interest groups.

  Which is why most of it gets wasted on programs that don't work, or make the problems even worse.

  And lets not pretend that's not by design. Guys like Pat Robertson run their charities the way they do in order to keep poor people poor. That's his Christo-fascist mission in life.

  by Flibberty Gibbet on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:33:18 AM PDT

  •  That's a bit cynical...

    If I'm not mistaken more good works are done with private donations than gov't programs, and you imply that Americans are greedy and foolish - and perhaps uniquely so.

    I know it is very popular to hold such views, but I disagree entirely.  I think Americans are very generous peronally and as a group, empirically and as compared to most nations and peoples.  There is corruption in "charity" no doubt, but not imho most charities and by no means exclusively in America charity.

    I might have more faith in you than you do... ;~)

    -chris

    by chrisblask on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:00:34 PM PDT

    •  You are somewhat mistaken.

      If we gave our %GDP donations through taxes (wrt other developed nations), poverty likely wouldn't exist on this planet.

      All it would take is a diverting some of our $400B/yr spent at the Pentagon (even more now that Bush is in charge).

      Americans aren't particularly generous when you look at how much our country earns as a whole. That means that wealthy Americans aren't generous. Average and poor Americans are generous, but they tend give to ineffective religious programs that promote abstinence for example, which exacerbate the problems.

      Average Americans are relatively generous, because they're relatively religious... in my opinion. But they're also easily fooled by the wealthy snakeoil salesmen who run those charities... who are in bed with Republicans to keep overseas production costs down.

      Poor people mine our minerals, sew our clothes, dig out our diamonds... and if they weren't poor, and if they weren't kept that way, our world would change, and the balance of power would change... and American leaders can't or won't let that happen.

      That's why America doesn't give to charity by way of taxes, but instead by way of personal donation.

      It perpetuates the system we've seen for decades.

      by Flibberty Gibbet on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM PDT

      •  Not to re-fight the Cold War,

        but as imperfect as our system is it has been pretty clearly demonstrated that to follow your argument to it's conclusion we'd end up with the kinds of systems where we evenly distribute all the complete lack of wealth that such systems create and we'd all be equally gifted with the moral blessings of poverty.

        Anyway, like your name! :~)

        -chris

        by chrisblask on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:18:17 PM PDT

        •  I don't think that's realistic.

          Whatever we propose would get watered down. The corporate elite will always be who they are... and we can only put dents in their powerstructures.

          The fact is that since globalization began in the 1970's the distribution of wealth has shifted dramatically. Corporations pay a much lower percentage of their profits in taxes than they did in the 1950's... and people wonder why life seemed so good in the 50's... well, there are reasons.

          There is plenty of money and there always has been.

          It's just a matter of whether it goes into the pockets of the top 1% or it's distributed to the social services we used to have that made America great during the period we remember as being great.

          There's nothing to fear from taxes... it doesn't even mean that average people (middle class) lose money... it just means they don't get to decide which agency their charity donations go to... as they will only go to secular agencies that do work backed by the "reality based" community, scientists, healthcare professionals, disease experts, etc... instead of religious fundamentalists.

          And I think that's the right direction.

          by Flibberty Gibbet on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:21:02 PM PDT

        •  Also, we export our misery.

          You can't think about "America" myopically.

          America is the Marianas Islands. That's where our clothes are made... in work camps.

          That's America too, and that portion of America is extremely ugly... just as ugly as any other developed nation like Russia or China... same conditions, if not worse. And I've been to China and have seen their factories. It's terrible. But we're kidding ourselves if we think we don't do the same things they do. We just export that misery, we disguise who we really are underneath.

          by Flibberty Gibbet on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:26:20 PM PDT

•  Donations?

  Well the best nation is "dough-nation" and I'm guessing that we the people have given enough to camp Clinton, without much return.

  Even the donations are not through largesse to those in need.  A self-created charity, which is also a tax deductable place to parlay "influence" . . . donations that can be selectively disbursed to enhance the other family ambitions.  Some charity.

  Hardly largesse.  Notice no evenhanded generosity.  Calculated giving for political purposes, not like the rest of the country who are moved by the plight of others and open our wallets locally and nationally when there is human need.

  by Septima on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:39:42 AM PDT

•  Clinton Family Foundation

  is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit.
  You can see their 990s on Guidestar.
  I looked at a few of them.
  They gave money to lots of charities, schools and churches.
  Typical charities, IMHO.
  And neither Hillary, Bill or Chelsea gets any money from the family foundation.
  The foundation is just a management tool when you have that much money to give out.

  The Clinton Family Foundation connection with the Clinton Library is a little convoluted. Selling the donor list is also typical, but messy because of all the political connections. 501 (c)(3) nonprofits cannot sell donor lists to advance a political candidate.

  Where Clintons got their money is far more interesting than what charities they gave to IMHO.
  There is much more to look at there.

  by chrisc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:40:55 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the info, Chris (and good name btw ;)

    You're right as well about sources of income - there are clean and there are dirty ways to make money.  I wouldn't expect them to be so uninformed as to allow themselves to be caught making dirty money, but I also wouldn't have assumed Sen. Clinton is so foolish and vain as to steal valor from solidiers - and see how wrong I was on that...

    -cheers!

    -chris

    by chrisblask on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:04:24 PM PDT

    •  Ways to Make Money

      I am pretty sure most of the ways Clinton's make money are perfectly legal.
      It isn't the illegality or "dirtiness" that will be problematic for Clinton- it is the stark contrast between her campaign message and how she and Bill make money. On the one hand, Hillary is saying that she is for the little guy, good wages and benefits, and health care. But how will that come across to the voters if she and Bill are invested in companies that took American jobs overseas or that improved their bottom line by not offering health care benefits and/or replacing union wage jobs with lower paying positions?

      There is also the  hint of quid pro quo with some shady characters.
      Note that Burkle also tried to get Clinton to pardon for Michael Milken and almost succeeded.

      by chrisc on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:24:27 PM PDT

      •  Yep, this is exactly what I see too

        It really is the stark contrast between what she says and what she does that bothers me.

        Her campaign finances are in shambles, but what bothers me is that she has so much money, and she won't pay all those small businesses that she owes who really need the money. She says she's against sending jobs overseas, but she spent years courting Tata Consulting and speaking in favor of NAFTA and favored trading with China. The Clintons claim they won't give out lists of donors due to privacy concerns, but when someone offers them money for them, suddenly they're available.

        I just don't understand why so many people can't see through her.

        by dawnt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:33:02 PM PDT

•  There's no problem with the Clintons making

  money. If their tax returns are getting closer scrutiny, it's because they have been so damned clandestine and shady in so many areas, so deceitful, and even right now are very reluctant to exhibit full transparency.  Transparency is part of the political game, especially for such high office. And it's not like Hillary running for President was a last-minute idea!

  by phrogge prince on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:48:41 AM PDT

•  Look at the 990

  You can see the 2006 (and earlier) tax returns of the foundation here, although you may have to register to do so (free).

  Just a quick pass shows the foundation gave $30 mill to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund (statement 11).  The next highest ($495,000) was to Educate a Child Trust for tsunami relief.

  It doesn't say much about the donors, however, except for some stock they received.

  by accumbens on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:49:57 AM PDT

  •  No. The Clinton Family Foundation

    is a different organization than the Clinton Foundation, in which you link to.

    The Clinton Family Foundation has three officers: Bill, Hillary and Chelsea. It's set up as a tax shelter. Here are there 990 forms:

    http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/...

    Through 2006, the Clintons had donated $5.3 million to this foundation but have only given away about 25% of it to actual charities.

    by jeepdad on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:48:42 PM PDT

    •  OK, thanks.

      by accumbens on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:09:58 PM PDT

•  People That Sell Other Peoples Information Are

  Scumbags. There is no other word that fits better.

  by DFutureIsNow on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:22:17 PM PDT

•  Are Foundation Donors The Ones Blackmailing DNC!

  That would be interesting to know and a huge conflict of interest.

  by DFutureIsNow on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:24:36 PM PDT

  •  I hadn't really thought of that

    It's a possibility, but who knows... At this juncture, it really could be anybody.

    by dawnt on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:30:40 PM PDT

•  I read on the Page

  that after Clinton released her tax returns, some surrogate said that Obama releasing his returns was the first step. I couldn't believe the audacity. Those M-fers piss me off. She hasn't even released her earmarks or the Clinton library donor list. They got a lot a nerve.

  by Highwind on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:47:09 PM PDT