Chelsea Clinton Speaking Fee Flap

[HassleCat]

Chelsea Clinton’s big speaking fee is attracting much attention on DU this morning, particularly since her mom asked for $275k to speak at a luncheon to celebrate a women’s center opening at a university. Hillary Clinton’s detractors are pointing it out as evidence of naked greed. Her supporters are firing back, accusing the detractors of vitriolic cheap shots, and pointing out the money goes to the Clintons’ foundation, not to them personally. This made me curious about the foundation and how it spends its money. Rush Limbaugh said most foundation money goes for salaries, but he’s not much of a source.

Here’s an excerpt from the New York Post, but the Post is not exactly a paragon of journalist excellence.

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.


Charity Watch gives the foundation an “A” rating, and calculates 89 percent of money donated goes to program activities, with only 11 percent for overhead. So why the difference? Reading the Post article gives the impression the foundation operates as Clinton slush fund, which is exactly the words they choose for their headline: “Charity Watchdog: Clinton Foundation a Slush Fund.” But wait! If you read more of the Post article, they claim the information comes from the “most influential” charity rating organization, and I always thought that was Charity Watch, but the Post says it’s Charity Navigator. So off to another website to find out their rating of the Clinton Foundation.

“We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.”

What! No talk about slush funds? No accusations of misuse? No mention of warnings, alerts, watches or alarms? This hardly matches the Post’s implication that the foundation is just a personal petty cash fund for the Clinton family. In fact, it seems the foundation is entirely above board. Well, as much as any other big charity. Sure, they may employ some of their friends in jobs that don’t involve much work. Sure, they take money from big corporations who expect political access. This is not unusual for large charities in the United States.

What’s the conclusion, here? Yes, the Clintons do use their foundation as a political tool, which is clear when looking at big donations from corporations involved in Canadian energy production, for example. The Clintons demand large speaking fees and send the check to the foundation, which they use to promote their political agenda, as well as their personal political ambitions. But this is not illegal. If you want to pay Chelsea Clinton $65k to speak at your event, you can see where the money is going, and how it’s used. In fact, some of the foundation’s work appears to be on behalf of good causes, things almost anybody would say are valuable contributions to society. Yes, they rub elbows with the rich and famous, and they lay on the luxury thickly to attract people who will give money to the foundation. I don’t like this very much, but the starving children don’t get fed unless you serve the expensive champagne.

So, the high speaking fees are par for the course. You can argue, as I would, that it’s a case of greed by proxy, and the foundation is as much a political tool as it is a charity. But it still does good stuff, and the Clintons are not pocketing the money. I would prefer a presidential candidate who is less connected to big corporate donors, but it’s not realistic to expect all public servants to follow the Socratic model. I’ll wager most Americans see nothing wrong as long as no illegal activity occurs. This doesn’t make Hillary Clinton untrustworthy or anything like that. In fact, she can claim a certain patch of moral high ground, when compared to past presidents who collected big speaking fees and didn’t give the money to anyone but themselves. So Clinton is probably much better than Ronald Reagan, but maybe not as pure as Jimmy Carter. I realize that pleases neither her supporters not her detractors, but politics and politicians are people, and they make certain compromises. Yes, even my guy.

[PoliticAverse]

1. "her mom asked for $275 to speak" - I think you're missing some 0's there. n/t

[HassleCat]

3. haha yes I added the "k" thanks (eom)

[Lil Missy]

2. The law of supply and demand at work. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. This is not what you want to have to say about your candidate's activities: But this is not illegal.

Yes, the Clintons do use their foundation as a political tool, which is clear when looking at big donations from corporations involved in Canadian energy production, for example. The Clintons demand large speaking fees and send the check to the foundation, which they use to promote their political agenda, as well as their personal political ambitions. But this is not illegal.

See, that just doesn't sound 'right' to a lot of people. What the people who crashed the US economy did was largely 'not illegal' either, but most folks who suffered because of them sure as hell wish it was. We don't need candidates who have to defend their activities as 'not illegal'.

I’ll wager most Americans see nothing wrong as long as no illegal activity occurs.

I think that's a wager you'd lose.

[HassleCat]

6. I think it's wrong

But I realize most voters probably disagree with me. My idea of the role of a public servant does not allow a former secretary of state, or her former president husband (but maybe their daughter) to accept large donations from organizations that obviously have zero interest in the stated goals of the foundation. We should stick with the progressive model, which means our elected officials work hard to give ordinary citizens a fighting chance against big corporations. Instead, most of our elected leaders take money from exactly the people who are out to screw us, and they even have legal ways to convert that money to personal cash. The big flap over the Canadian contributions was not because a corporation legally bribed a former and future public servant, but because the money came from "foreigners."

[msongs]

5. "and she's buying a stairway to .... heaven" nt

[Luminous Animal]

7. FYI, only the fees that she receives from colleges and universities are donated to her foundation.

The speaking fees she receives from Citibank, Goldman Sachs, etc. are reported as personal income.