Donald trumped directed numerous dollars to his tax-exempt foundation. Here's how. (Peter Stevenson, Lee Powell/The Washington Post)
“Data doesn’t lie: Clinton foundation was ‘slush fund’ when Hillary was a Senator/Secretary/Pres candidate. Trump foundation helped human being in need with 100% come charities, however
realDonaldTrump voluntarily close up door his down. Yet that is the sleazy NY AG suing?!”
— trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale, in a tweet, June 14, 2018

The new York attorney general’s lawsuit against the trump card Foundation, alleging “persistently illegal conduct,” motivated this tweet through the manager of the president’s reelection campaign.

You are watching: How is the clinton foundation rated

The tweet to be accompanied by a chart the was headlined “Real Charity vs. ‘Slush Fund.’ ” The chart claimed that the Donald J. Trump structure gave “100%” to charities, with “0.0%” expenses, compared with only 6.4 percent come charities because that the Clinton foundation — and also 93.6 percent in expenses, consisting of administration, travel, salaries and bonuses.

First of all, despite both organizations have the native “foundation” in their names, lock are different kinds the entities.

The Trump foundation was a reasonably small exclusive family foundation that made specific contributions. The Clinton Foundation, by contrast, is a large public charity; it does no dole out grants yet instead allocates the donations it raises directly to specified charitable activities, together as promoting economic advancement and worldwide health. So it’s already a issue of apples and oranges as soon as making simplistic comparisons around expenses.

Meanwhile, the Trump structure did have actually some expenses — $56,163 between 2006 and 2016, essentially all ($56,000) in accountancy fees, follow to its taxation filings. That functions out to around 0.43 percent the the $12.7 million in outgoing donations in the period. It is pretty good, however it’s not 0.0 percent. Offered the foundation’s legal travails, one might argue the it should have actually spent more than $163 in legitimate fees in the period.

Moreover, to insurance claim that the foundation gave “100%” to charities is simply not true, unless one considers the president himself to be a charity.

As our partner David Fahrenthold an initial reported in his Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on the trump card Foundation, trump did not donate any type of money come the structure between 2008 and 2015 and most the its money was not actually his. Through law, trump wasn’t allowed to buy points for himself utilizing the charity’s money, even if he to be buying lock from non-profit groups.

But trumped twice supplied the charity’s money to clear up legal problems that associated his for-profit businesses, the new York lawyer general alleged. He also engaged in various other instances of self-dealing, such as paying $10,000 come buy a portrait that Trump that was discovered hanging in one of his golf resorts. The foundation also donated $25,000 come a Florida political team aiding the reelection initiative of state Attorney basic Pam Bondi (R) — and was offered to benefit his presidential campaign, the sue said.

Parscale’s graph lists together a source a 2015 new York Post write-up that was titled “Charity watchdog: Clinton structure a ‘slush fund.’” The short article was pegged to the announcement that Charity Navigator, which prices nonprofits, made decision to put the Clinton foundation on the “watch list.” The team took the activity after media reports elevated troubling questions around the to run of the foundation and the structure spun off part entities and also later bought some, according to a 2015 interview v our colleagues at

Charity Navigator stated that the Clinton foundation had an “atypical company model” and that “our remove of The Clinton foundation from our website is neither a condemnation no one an proof of this charity.”

But the company did not speak to the Clinton structure a “slush fund.” That came from a quote in the write-up offered by bill Allison, at the moment a an elderly fellow at the sunlight Foundation.

Allison told The truth Checker he was referring to media coverage, in specific a Washington post report that revealed the Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speak fees through companies and organizations that space also major donors to the foundation. A memo written by a height Clinton aide, leaked through WikiLeaks in 2016, further exposed the inner functions of “Bill Clinton Inc.,” in i beg your pardon donors to the Clinton foundation were pressed come provide an individual income to the former president.

“It was extremely unusual come me and also ethically challenged,” Allison said, adding the he stand by the quote. Yet he listed that that made the “slush-fund” comment in the food of a 20-minute conversation. “What to be robbed indigenous the paper definition of the quote is that ns did say the the Clinton structure did an excellent work,” that said.

In any case, by the end of 2015, Charity Navigator gotten rid of the Clinton structure from its clock list. The organization indicated that tax information made available by the Clinton Foundation, including four years of taxation returns amended through the organization, and a publicly memo submitted by the group, met Charity Navigator’s needs for removal.

In 2016, Charity Navigator started listing the Clinton structure as a “low concern” charity, through a four-star rating, its highest rating. The Clinton structure currently has a score the 93.91 out of 100 for finances, accountability and transparency.

Meanwhile, Charity Navigator in 2016 authorize a “high concern” advisory top top the Trump structure after news reports the the new York attorney basic would inspection it and also Trump would look for to near it.

The new York article report asserted that the Clinton structure took $140 million in grants and also pledges in 2013 however spent simply $9 million on direct aid, based on 2013 tax filings. But as us explained, that is a windy charity. The ratio of 6.4 percent towards charities and 93.6 percent towards expenses, suggested by the tax kind and recurring in the chart, is based upon a misreading that the tax files filed through the foundation.

By contrast, the American institute of Philanthropy’s CharityWatch provides the Clinton structure an “A” rating, that second-highest performance rating, i m sorry is based on the percent of complete expenses a charity spent on its program in the year analyzed and also the expense to raise $100.

For 2016, according to tax documents and audited jae won statements, the Clinton foundation spent 88 percent of its cash budget on programs, contrasted to 12 percent on overhead, such together fundraising, management and also expenses. The organization likewise calculated that it expenses the Clinton foundation only $2 for every $100 that raises.

In various other words, the fact is almost the the contrary of what Parscale portrays in his chart. Indeed, CharityWatch consists of the Clinton foundation on its perform of top-rated charities.

(CharityWatch mostly rates publicly charities, and also some society welfare and veterans organizations that generally solicit the public for donations, so the does not rate the trumped Foundation.)

Here’s an instance of wherein data have the right to lie, if presented in a misleading fashion. Parscale’s chart compares apples and also oranges — and also then supplies an expense-charity ratio for the Clinton foundation that is practically backward. One can raise legitimate questions around the Clinton foundation without resorting come phony math — or ignoring the well-documented problems with the to run of the trump card Foundation. Parscale earns 4 Pinocchios.

See more: How Many Calories Do You Eat A Day ? How Many Calories Should I Eat A Day


Washington short article Rating:
“Data doesn’t lie: Clinton foundation was ‘slush fund’ if Hillary to be a Senator/Secretary/Pres candidate. Trump foundation helped people in need with 100% come charities, but

Today’s HeadlinesThe most important news story of the day, preserve by short article editors and delivered every morning.