According to tax returns filed by the Clinton Foundation, only 5.7% of the funds raised actually went to charitable organizations. The rest went to salaries and benefits for employees and “other expenses.”
A well-run charity spends only about 25% on administrative costs.
The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.
That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.
Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”
Despite taking in an additional $30 million in 2014, the Clinton Foundation spent 40 percent less on charitable grants in 2014 than in 2013. Even as it slashed charitable spending, the foundation increased the amount spent on salaries, employee benefits and compensation by $5 million in 2014. The foundation also spent $5 million more “other expenses” in 2014.
Sean Davis at The Federalist notes, “the bulk of the charitable work lauded by the Clinton Foundation’s boosters — the distribution of drugs to impoverished people in developing countries — is no longer even performed by the Clinton Foundation. Those activities were spun off in 2010 and are now managed by the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a completely separate non-profit organization.”
As first reported by The Daily Caller, the IRS launched an investigation into the Clinton Foundation this past July after 64 House Republicans called the foundation a “lawless ‘pay-to-play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years and should be investigated” in a letter to the IRS, FBI and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
There’s no law that says the foundation must spend a certain percentage of money it raises on charitable giving. But donors don’t care about any charity work being done by the foundation. They are buying access and favors from two very powerful people who have become fabulously wealthy by pulling off this giant scam.
Notice that, although this isn’t news to anyone who is paying attention, we’re not hearing of any donors demanding their money be returned. This is a clear indication that the donors and the Clintons are in on the scam together, with both parties going into the transactions with a clear understanding of what’s expected.
If there’s a better definition of “pay for play,” I have yet to hear it.