You asked why you should trust me. I typed out the steps I took. I was Executive Director of Family Service Assn. in Redlands for 10 years, and VP Development for Beyond Shelter in Los Angeles for 6 years. I am a former Kellogg United Way Board Member Trainer.
My article never claimed the stated employee was not a real person, it questioned whether or not she was an employee. When I dialed the phone number listed it rang to UC Riverside extension and I described what I was told.
That said, I listed the primary reasons why the Clinton Foundation is deficient. None of them are small matters like whether or not the stated employee (I am no longer listing her name because I believe she was a contract employee or volunteer and has done nothing wrong in trying to organize meetings) “is a real person” or that one web page is mistaken. Their entire WEB SITE is nothing but one page like that after another.
Having a small board comprised of relatives is a hallmark of a fraudulent or dysfunctional charitable organization. You could find this type of information on a website like, oh, say Charity Navigator. It’s featured in my article about oh — I think — Charity Navigator! The organization’s auditor up until 2015 was BKD LLP, a Little Rock-based regional auditing firm that has been convicted and fined of accounting fraud. The poor quality of the organization’s tax returns and AFS (Google that term) and low conformance (they do not MATCH in the same years, a major red flag) shows there is no coherence or cohesion in programs. The actual payroll and salary recommendations show almost 100 “administrative” employees in Harlem and few, if any, with any type of “program” designation after their name. There are dozens and dozens of reports in the Podesta emails about infighting between CF and CHAI (the separate, Boston-based AIDS organization).
My whole point was “Clinton Foundation takes in SO much money and delivers so few results.” This is documented and verifiable — every “program” they have benefits few, if any, “in need.”
They also seem to provide little to no benefit to the large corporations that participate in the huge Clinton Global Initiative meetings. One of my articles details how McDonalds “pledged” various “improvements” with very slow to no progress in their pledged nutritional improvement goals. This is a company that successfully changes menu in response to customer needs or market research 3+ times a year. Another article details how Clinton Fdn accepts funds from big food/corporate food and provides a small amount to the “Alliance for a Healthier Generation” separate nonprofit each year — and claims that organization’s (weak, duplicative) programs as its primary result.
Clinton Foundation operated and operates exactly like a family-run scammy fake charity such as the ones that have been prosecuted in the past (Cancer Fund of America).
That said, the low-functioning is a pattern. When I covered the story of Nujood Ali, I realized that the women-oriented charities fundraising using Nujood’s name and image were similarly low-functioning to Clinton Foundation. Many international meetings and galas, few to no “programs” and no “results.”
Now, as to one comment you made, questioning my assertion that the Clinton Foundation’s donors are divergent from other major international charities, I am a former development officer for a legitimate, above-board medium-to-large nonprofit organization and my early work background was with the United Way. In my capacity at Beyond Shelter, I worked with all the large national and some international foundations.
The only major above board foundations on the Clinton Foundation donor list are Gates and Rockefeller. I uncovered that the Rockefeller “donation” was facilitated through Doug Band and former Rockefeller CEO Judy Rodin. The Clinton Foundation does not have defined programs, outcomes or capacity to work in the accepted manner with foundations like Rockefeller or Gates.
Regardless of what you state, there is a large, above board charitable sector in which organizations that actually accomplish stated tasks in exchange for funding in an organized system involving contracts, written reports, goals and objectives. NGOS are increasingly asked to perform almost superhuman feats in exchange for ever-shrinking and limited funds.
Clinton Foundation did not have to worry about any of that. Their funders were not ones that gave to any other charitable organizations (UNITAID, the airline surcharge fund gives almost 100% to CHAI, Swedish Postcode Lottery etc — these don’t fund other above-board organizations). They continued to receive government funding despite Single Audit exceptions that would have stopped funding to any other organization. They were able to hold their gala meetings which merely featured back-slapping, glad-handing and PR for international billionaires, “celebrity speakers,” slacktivist causes, and the “public-private partnership opportunity.”
That said, let’s just take these joint efforts in Colombia with Frank Giustra to help the country out. I called the job training school in Cartagena and discovered it was a branch of a for-profit employment agency, not a charitably-funded “training and employment center for indigenous people.” Or whatever! Then Fusion, with funding from the American Media Institute, sent reporters to Colombia.
So, the steps I asked you to take, were a small portion of the steps I myself, took. It’s called “conforming” and it’s what a real program officer at an operating foundation would do to a regular nonprofit applicant being seriously considered for a major grant. Clinton Foundation is not eligible for, nor could it appropriately expend a real, above-board grant from any nonprofit Foundation or corporate giving program. It does not have the program systems in place, it lacks qualified employees, it lacks qualified board members, it does not meet financial standards, and it doesn’t have the capacity. It does not have a coherent organizational mission (review the past tax documents and annual reports — what little is put changes from year to year). It has no strategic planning. It has no long range planning. If it says it “operates” a program, one finds there are few, or no, employees actually in the program area. Most damningly, its own press releases simply document what a major corporation or donor wanted to say using the Clinton Foundation name. This dates back for years.
I don’t find any of that charitable or tax exempt. I said that the Foundation might be best categorized as a business league or promotional organization. That is tax exempt category 501(c)6. Payments to those organizations are NOT tax deductible (including internationally in countries that have similar NGO laws). But the organization itself only has to pay tax on income-producing business activities. The Clinton Foundation has a few of those: and never paid taxes on them — of course!
I work 10–12 hours a day to keep a roof over our heads. So if this isn’t “good enough” for you and you still want to support these fine individuals, be my guest.