An Uncharitable Foundation takes you through a lot of relevant information, and was clearly written before the latest revelation by David Farenthold that the Donald J. Trump Foundation is apparently operating illegally because it does not have the appropriate certification to solicit funds from New York State.
In the opening paragraph, after reminding people that the foundation is both relatively small and also run directly by the Republican nominee, the editorial board writes
Although the foundation is a charitable organization, it appears to have been used for less than charitable purposes.
After crediting Farenthold and noting a number of issues he has identifed, the board continues with these words:
No competent lawyer would advise a charitable foundation that such payments were allowable, and only someone with no respect for charity would so flagrantly violate these basic rules.
The editorial continues with an explanation of the importance of honest disclosure in order to keep charities on the straight and narrow, given the lack of resources in the IRS to investigate every charity. As to this case,
Misrepresentation by charities stymies enforcement. If not for Mr. Fahrenthold’s reporting, neither the public nor the government might ever have known that Mr. Trump most likely used the foundation as a personal piggy bank.
Let’s stop for a few moments, and review a few of the verbal punches to this point in the editorial
less than charitable purposes
No competent lawyer
no respect for charity
flagrantly violate
Misrepresentation
a personal piggy bank
But we are not yet even to the heart of the editorial. It continues with a detailed explanation of procedures of reporting and accounting, and offers examples of how Trump has violated them. Then comes this paragraph:
For these reasons, the foundation’s tax returns contain clear misrepresentations. An officer or trustee of every foundation must sign the returns “under penalties of perjury.” Given the explicit questions that the tax form asks, it is hard to believe that the foundation omitted so much relevant information by mistake. The foundation’s governing board consists of Mr. Trump; his children Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka; and a Trump Organization employee. They were advised by an accounting firm, to which the foundation paid a $5,000 fee in recent years. If the Trump family failed to understand the questions, their accountants could have explained.
Yesterday’s story by Kurt Eichenwald demonstrates Trump violating Federal law with respect to the embargo on dealing with Cuba. Farenthold’s reporting has similarly demonstrated how the Trump Foundation is in violation of IRS regulations in how it has been run, and now, with last evening’s report, with registration requirements in NY State (although the penalties for the latter are civil). But in filing false statement, Trump and his children and the employee are in theory subject to CRIMINAL charges for perjury. That is serious.
From a political standpoint, I am not sure how or even if the Clinton campaign should attempt to address this. It does offer a response to charges thrown at Secretary Clinton, but realistically I’m not sure that is where the campaign wants the focus to be. Although, as part of a pattern of how Trump does believe the rules do not apply to him, it might be relevant.
The editorial continues with several additional points, including Trump’s own lack (and a lack from his family members) of direct contributions to his Foundation for a number of years. That leads to the non-disclosure of his personal tax returns, thereby denying both the public an understanding of his personal charitable giving (which may be non-existent or miniscule), although that will not prevent authorities from examining them to see if he was forthcoming and accurate in statements he has made to both federal and state employees.
The final two paragraphs from the editorial speak for themselves, so I will end by simply quoting them completely. They contain a serious warning about what we might expect should God forbid Trump actually achieve the Oval Office.
Violations of these rules are an affront to all charities. The I.R.S. and the attorney general of New York, Eric Schneiderman, who is investigating the foundation to determine whether it complied with state law, should hold it to the highest standard. If the reported violations prove true, the foundation does not deserve its charitable or tax-exempt status.
Americans who give to, volunteer with, or depend on charities should know that politicking and self-dealing by charities are never acceptable. The candidate’s apparent disregard for the law does not bode well for a Trump administration.