Sunday, July 06, 2014

#HillaryLies - Why Her Outrageous Speaking Fees Don't 'Go To Charity'


Hillary Rodham Clinton is cursed, in a way. In spite of  her media minions shielding her at every opportunity, in spite of the huge, well-funded machine at her beck and call, she remains her own worse enemy.

First there was that ludicrous interview with Diane Sawyer where Mrs. Clinton attempted to 'identify' with the masses, bemoaning how broke she and Mr. Bill were when they left the White House. That nonsense was so palpable even the Washington Post couldn't resist debunking it.

Then, there was the controversy over her outrageous speaking fees when she's hired by universities run by politically connected and sympathetic administrators. That money normally comes from the pockets of broke students trying to make ends meet, deal with hikes in fees and tuition and looking forward to struggling to pay off heavy student loan balances and fighting for that first unpaid internship.$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYvCUTT2eGIx_wgujG97GH8MWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

At the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), for instance, Students facing a steep tuition hike have announced that they will protest a an October appearance by Ms. Clinton if she doesn't return the $225,000 she's raking in back to the university.

Hillary's reply? As she told ABC's Ann Compton, the huge fees she's pocketed all go to charity. Yes...they go to the Clinton Foundation.

Now, foundations are interesting creatures. As Jane Fonda shows us , if the foundation has 501(c) status (and the Clinton Foundation certainly does), they can be used as a place to park income so it isn't taxed and can be used for various 'expenses'..or even invested, tax free. Why else do you think that most of the super-wealthy in America like the Clintons have such foundations?

Another thing about foundations that's interesting is that according to the IRS rules, they're allowed to pay salaries and 'administrative costs' (pretty much anything you can think of) with any portion of the donor money, something that has attracted a lot of prominent politicians. Ex-president Jimmy Carter's Peace Foundation, for example provides a very nice income for him courtesy of his anti-Israel Arab friends. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is another prime example of how 'foundations' , 'libraries' and 'centers' can be used as cash cows by their 'owners'.

And here's the kicker about Hillary's 'charitable donation'. Anything the wealthy 'donor' to such a foundation donates likewise becomes a deduction against whatever taxes they might owe the IRS. So if Hillary Rodham Clinton actually did 'donate' all that money to the Clinton Foundation, she got paid two ways..first by reducing her taxable income significantly to lower her taxes and second by acquiring a huge deduction to leverage against the taxes on her other income. And since her husband 'owns' the Clinton Foundation, the money stayed in the family.

Both The New York Times, of all people, and The New York Post had some disturbing things to say about where the huge sums of money the Clinton Foundation collects were spent...and the Clinton Foundation's infrequent audits.

The Clinton Foundation's mission statement ought to be a tipoff:

"We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

Or as I would translate it, 'We actively pursue fundraising from governments, private enterprise and our well connected friends for various nebulous causes. Yeah, we got a few good things going on, a few programs we can point to, some conferences and some meetings so we have the slideshow as a marketing tool, but essentially, our real object is fundraising and covering our substantial expenses.'

Don't be surprised if some those 'expenses' end up being in kind, cash contributions to Hillary's 2026 campaign that not only evade McCain-Feingold but allow 'donors to get a nice tax deduction to a 501 C in the bargain. It's a dodge, just like the huge $14 million advance Democrat donor-owned Simon & Schuster ponied up for Hillary's failed book. Hillary will pocket the cash and Sumner Redstone and his friends will recoup it courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers after they deduct it as a loss against their other income.

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan


Laura Rambeau Lee said...

I don't begrudge anyone working it to make money; I do begrudge liars, cheats, adulterers, and murderers. Oh,and Marxists. I begrudge Marxists.

Rob said...

Exactly, M'Dear. I couldn't agree more.

Except I don't begrudge commies per se as long as they're honest about it. Th majority of them aren't.


ReRe Ficoli said...

Two questions come to mind on the topic of the Clinton criminal conspirators, after reading this article:

1. I thought political contributions were non-deductible, so how would any deduction be generated by contributing to her campaign? And can such a foundation even legally make political contributions? If they can, they shouldn't be able to.

2. How will Simon & Schuster get their $14 million back from the taxpayers? I mean, I know Obama has had various government entities buy his books and give them as gifts (which should be a crime), but is there another way? Because that's a lot of crappy books to give away. And it pessimistically assumes Shrillary is going to win.

Anonymous said...

Simple. Easy to figure this out.

1)Deductions to her campaign aren't deductible, but contributions to the Clinton Foundation are. So people can donate to the Foundation and the money can be hidden as various 'expenses' and leaked to the campaign. We know damn sure the IRS isn't going to be checking the Clinton Foundation too closely!

2) Read the link in the post. Simon and Schuster are owned by Viacom,and run by Democrats. They aren't asking for any of the advance back so Hillary keeps it and they claim the $14 mil as a 'loss' and deduct it from their other profits. So WE pay for it. These guys have been in the biz for years. They published her last book, they had a pretty good idea of what it would sell, this advance was almost double what she got last time.

It's a campaign contribution..illegal as hell, but then who's really going to do anything about it? Eric Holder?