Morning Ed: Politics {2017.07.25.M}

Morat20 in reply to Kimmi says:

BS article by the NY post. The CF isn’t a pass-through charity. They don’t take donations and redonate to other causes. If you’re an idiot who can’t read a tax filing, you might come to that conclusion.

FactCheck had a nice piece on it (and I’ve referenced Charity Watch’s own report above)

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.
By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.
“What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”
In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”
Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.

Charity Navigator’s own page on it says:

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not 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 does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

But by all means, keep tinfoiling the CF based on easily debunked smears.Report

Morat20 in reply to Kimmi says:

Over 2,000 employees. What’s the average salary? How much of it is being redeployed?

Yes Kimmie, because they aren’t just a foundation, they do the charity works themselves.

Which requires — and I understand this may be hard to grasp — hiring people to do stuff, in addition to volunteers.

12% overhead — the industry standard for charities is 25% or less. That’s the number you should pay attention to because that number directly answers the questions “How much are they paying staff” and “how is this number compared to other charities”.

But you won’t, because this is the Clinton’s and that number is both good AND strikes to the heart of the conspiracy theory you’re clutching to your bosom.Report

Morat20 in reply to Kimmi says:

So having dropped your previous…incorrect…information, you have decided to imply the CF injures small children?

Bravo, Kimmie. I’m sure that’ll make people take you seriously!

And they don’t make a profit, Kimmie. Charity’s are non-profits. They’re not legally allowed to make profits, and are audited to heck and back again. AND YET AGAIN only 12% of their money goes to overhead, which is considered top-tier for charities.

Is that seriously all you have? Implied insults, vague sneers, and easily proven false information? Whomever you’re getting this stuff from, maybe you should start questioning their judgement.

They’re making you look quite the fool.Report