SubscribeClintons Hid Tax Dodge “Charity” For 5 Years
From, of all places, the DNC’s Washington Post:
Clintons’ Charity Not Listed On Senate Disclosure Forms
By John Solomon and Matthew Mosk
Tuesday, February 27, 2007; A01Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have operated a family charity since 2001, but she failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions.
The Ethics in Government Act requires members of Congress to disclose positions they hold with any outside entity, including nonprofit foundations. Hillary Clinton has served her family foundation as treasurer and secretary since it was established in December 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact.
The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.
Clinton’s spokesman said her failure to report the existence of the family foundation and the senator’s position as an officer was an oversight. Her office immediately amended her Senate ethics reports to add that information late yesterday after receiving inquiries from The Washington Post.
"The details of the Clintons’ charitable family foundation and Senator Clinton’s role in it have always been publicly available, but, in an oversight that leaders of both parties have made, it was inadvertently omitted from her Senate filing, which has been corrected," Hillary Clinton’s press secretary, Philippe Reines, said yesterday
Among the institutions receiving grants from the Clinton Family Foundation were Yale University, where both attended law school; groups named for deceased heads of state in Israel and Jordan; and a charity connected to the Arkansas businessman who helped Hillary Clinton make $100,000 on a commodities trade that stirred controversy a decade ago, Internal Revenue Service reports show.
Hillary Clinton’s decision to amend her Senate disclosures comes after several other high-profile politicians came under scrutiny for omitting family foundations from their financial disclosure reports, including former Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). They amended their disclosures, and neither was penalized.
Advisers to the Clintons said the family foundation amounted to only a fraction of their overall charitable efforts, which generate millions each year.
The charity is separate from the New York-based William J. Clinton Foundation, which has directed $10 billion in corporate money and resources toward slowing the global spread of AIDS, addressing climate change, and reducing hunger and poverty in developing countries.The smaller family foundation lists as its address a post office box in Chappaqua, N.Y., where the Clintons live. Hillary Clinton is listed as secretary and treasurer, Bill Clinton as president and the couple’s daughter, Chelsea, as a director. None takes any compensation.
The charity has been funded with money from lucrative book deals for both Clintons and from speechmaking by Bill Clinton since they left the White House in 2001. The foundation’s tax filings are available on an Internet repository for IRS documents. The only time the Clintons mentioned the foundation on her ethics report was in 2002, in a footnote about their $800,000 donation that year, but it did not disclose as required her position or other information about the foundation. In subsequent years, they made no mention of it.
Between 2001 and 2005, the Clintons seeded the charity with $5.16 million of their money. The foundation’s 2006 tax form is not due until later this year.
Tax records show the Clinton Family Foundation was created during Hillary Clinton’s first year in the Senate, when the couple gave $800,000 to launch the organization in early December 2001. The charity distributed no funds that year. The next year, the Clintons made $170,000 in donations while adding $100,000 of their own funds.
The Clintons donated much larger amounts in recent years as legal bills from Bill Clinton’s impeachment were paid off and their personal fortunes soared. At the end of 2005, the Clinton family foundation had nearly $4 million in cash assets…
Such omissions deprive the public of the right to scrutinize their political leaders’ financial dealings and identify possible conflicts of interest, the former chief of disclosure for the Federal Election Commission said.
Kent Cooper, who retired after two decades overseeing the FEC’s public disclosure office, said congressional ethics committees have not enforced the ethics disclosure requirements forcefully. As a result, he said, candidates "know there is no great consequences, and so the habit has developed that people dismiss an omission as a clerical error, when in fact it is a crucial piece of the puzzle about a member’s finances that is being hidden.
They list their donations of used underwear, but don’t list a charity they run on Hillary’s Senate "financial disclosure" forms?
Thankfully it was just "an oversight." We know how prone they are to those.
Of course this is merely a tax dodge setup to help shield the $40 million a year Bill is "earning" by influence peddling giving speeches all around the world, as also recently reported by the Washington Post.
Among the institutions receiving grants from the Clinton Family Foundation were… a charity connected to the Arkansas businessman who helped Hillary Clinton make $100,000 on a commodities trade that stirred controversy a decade ago,
It’s nice to see that the Clintons are finally getting around to paying off the gentleman who scammed them a cool $100,00 when they were earning a measly $30K a year.
It is surprising, however, to see that there are no homes for young nymphomaniacal girls listed among the recipients of their largess. (Those must be under the William J Clinton Foundation wing.)
But what has gotten into the Washington Post?
They are almost acting like a real newspaper lately.
Or maybe with the help of his Hollywood friends’ money, Obama was able to outbid the Clintons for their services this go around.
18 Responses to “Clintons Hid Tax Dodge “Charity” For 5 Years”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Come on SG, did you really expect the clinton’s to give away their own money?
Good Grief son, Wake up and smell the coffee.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I’m about Hillaryed out-what more can be said about this squalid family that hasn’t already been said although I think there are many, many more things to come out about the depth of their squalor…if it weren’t for the classification of low they’ed have no class at all. I guess the surprise is that it is the Washington Post that is bringing some of it to us, but then I believe that the Democrats do not want Hillary and her big B-HINO in power if the truth be known. I got up early and have been enjoying the comments section of the Washington Post to this story. The best thing was that those of us who think Hillary is the worst thing since the Indonesian tsunami are earlier risers than the seminar, e-mail talking points recipients so we got some truths in before the outraged,whatever has happened to the Washington Post and John Solomon is a character assassinator comments started in. It won’t be long before the Hillary hit and run gang will ruin the comments section by overwhelming it just like they did C-Span.
Hillary is a petty, greedy, vindictive , calculating and vicious woman ,IMO, and whatever she has done it has been deliberate and to benefit herself only. And as I have said over and over to hand her the keys to the National treasury and the White House so that she can reward her friends with the perks that we give her such as travel, banquets, luxury ,pork, jobs and expense account unlimited and punish her enemies by withholding honors and awards and siccing the FBI and the IRS and other government agencies on them is just national suicide. She is the embodiment of the worst of the socalled female traits, IMO.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Family Charity = Slush Fund.
“….dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.” Charitable contributions? More like bribes, payoffs.
How could “failed to report” on five separate occasions be a “clerical error?”
Reporters won’t be allowed to ask her about this either. The list of forbidden questions keeps growing.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Hillary gives a bad name to all the female dogs in the US.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
The media appears to be choosing sides…and Obama is their darling for the simple reason that he hasnt been in Washington long enough to be caught. Clinton is going to have every last ounce of crap dug up against her…and the liberal press is going to endorse who they perceive as the potential winner…..watch and see.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I still say the Ms. Hillary will drop out after the first primaties.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Yeah guys don’t give up the Clinton smear machine yet. It is still early in the game. I knew that those two had secrets that would shoot them in the foot. And all anyone has to do to shut BO down is send the Trinity United CoC - about us page to every newspaper in the country - and that guy won’t live to see another election. . .
Just wait - the Hildabeast and horneyhounddog are just waiting for the most opportune time to drop that bomb on Obama.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I concur with wardmama4…that is spot effing on.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
“And all anyone has to do to shut BO down is send the Trinity United CoC - about us page to every newspaper in the country - and that guy won’t live to see another election. . .”
I don’t know. They probably would just ignore it.
As of the moment this site remains the first and only place to post about it.
God knows our watchdog media wouldn’t print anything negative about a black church.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
When you’re talking Clinton, it’s not even a smear machine needed, just report the truth and let the two of them smear themselves; it’s just too easy.
How could “failed to report” on five separate occasions be a “clerical error?” Yep DWIC, if one of us did that, you and I would be getting audited and penalised so fast our heads wouldn’t have time to spin….
February 27th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
And they “wrote off” their used underwear as a gift to charity. Shameless.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
If the above story doesn’t give you heart burn in and of itself then read Cal Thomas’s column today in Jewish World Review and put the two stories together-those Clinton’s are , well for once I’m speechless, because I don’t have usable words to describe them.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
“A current target of persnickety finger pointing is Mr. Dick Cheney, who is darkly referred to as ‘an Oilman.’ In the year 2000, private citizen Cheney earned $36,086,635. He was left with a net income of $21,791,577 after the taxing authorities soaked him for $14,295,058. That same year Mr. and Mrs. Cheney donated to charity another $7,841,646. So the Cheneys handed over sixty-one percent of their income in taxes and charitable donations, a total of $22 million, 136 thousand, 704 dollars.
As a counterpoise to Mister Cheney, the tax-hungry Democrats offer us masculine-role-model Albert Gore, the junior. In 1997 Mister Gore claimed an income of $200,000. His total contribution to charity that year was $353, or a bit more than one-tenth of one percent of his income, which was less than Mister Gore and his wife, Mary, spent on pest control ($389). (If they’re that cheap, why is she nicknamed Tipper?) Fellow liberals Bill and Hillary Clinton repeatedly wrote off their discarded underwear as ‘charitable contributions.’ America’s pre-eminent liberals, it seems, prefer being generous with other people’s earnings.”
“The genuinely generous person shares his own wealth with others. The Cheney’s charitable contribution of $7 million, 841 thousand, 646 dollars bespeaks a generosity of spirit. Al Gore’s niggardly $353 contribution (less than his rat poison bill) suggests a less expansive response to human need: let ‘em apply to the welfare bureaucracy. That leaves only one question in need of an answer: Which charity accepted Bill Clinton’s funky underwear?”
Thomas Clough
February 27th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Back to Slick Willy. 1st, I don’t know what you think about seegars, but this one is just for you: http://www.weirdrepublic.com/episode7.htm
February 27th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
[...] read more at Sweetness and Light [...]
February 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Prof, that’s fairly common. Check the studies on who gives more, liberals or conservatives. :) Let’s just say the answer won’t surprise you…..
February 27th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Well, Mr. Redneck: “Long, long ago, insightful European aristocrats identified the fatal weakness in our form of government. They predicted that once American voters got it into their heads that they could vote themselves any benefit (at someone else’s expense) the days of democracy were numbered. As late as the Great Depression, seventy-five percent of Americans still believed that the government had no major role to play in fixing the financial complaints of its citizens. A lot has changed since then.
Under the tutelage of numerous Democratic Party mentors, starting with Franklin Roosevelt, America’s mendicants have become militant, surly, self-righteous and organized. Without a hint of shame they will tell you that they are entitled to your earnings because they are: (choose one) below average earners, have habits or attitudes or compulsions that make them undesirable as employees, have reached ‘retirement age,’ have produced families that they can’t support, have low I.Q.s, whatever.
Democratic Party politicians cultivate this crop of petulant moochers with loving care. Only half of the American population pays any income tax at all. Of those who do pay income tax, the bottom fifty percent of taxpayers contribute less than five percent of all the income taxes collected. This vast pool of non-taxpayers and tiny taxpayers is the natural constituency of the Democratic Party. By nurturing class envy, racial grievance and the myth that hard-working achievers were merely ‘lucky,’ Democrat politicians foster a sense of entitlement in their constituents. Democrats are encouraged to believe that picking their neighbor’s pockets is just a way of achieving ‘fairness.’ ”
And: “Of course Democrats don’t want people to be self-reliant. By its very definition, the Democrat Party thrives on miserable, dependent people. If these people went away, the Democrat Party would have no constituency.”
Also: “Wealth confiscation and transfer is how they buy votes, it’s the wellspring of their political longevity, it’s how they cling to power.”
February 28th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Why do the Clinton’s have to register for charities? EVERYONE knows their favorite charity is the Clintons. LOL I’m as confused as THEY are! ROFLMAO