Bush charged $100,000 for a charity speech — for wounded vets

While in very bad taste and a (on the face of it) image tarnishing development, it is not the same as peddling government influence for $300,000-$500,000 speeches.

@john:

one big difference is that Clinton’s fees pretty much all go into a charitable foundation, while most including that wounded vets fee to Bush go into his personal pocket

No, as has been shown by those that report on charities, the Clinton Foundation cannot even be scored as a charity, it’s “expenses” to charitable spending ration being so out of whack. Only about 10% goes to charitable work. In actuality, it is but one great big ATM for the Clinton’s.

Politicians never fail to disappoint, party notwithstanding. A democrat and a republican were both responsible for a item that will divert education funds to private financial consultants, hidden away in the recently-passed Senate K-12 education funding bill:

Senate Passes Bill Letting Schools Give Education Money To Financial Consulting Firms

In an interview with IBTimes, CAP scholar Ulrich Boser defended the amendment, saying it can help other states replicate the cost savings Warner’s administration identified while he was governor.

“The model for this amendment, Virginia’s model, shows that outside consultants were effective in finding efficiencies, like reducing the cost of bus service or cafeteria service,” said Boser.

But when asked by IBTimes for evidence that financial consultants benefit public education systems, Boser acknowledged that “there is no academic evidence to support the idea that outside consultants help school districts.”

So why OK giving them public money? It’s a mystery. We’re not talking about small amounts of money, either.

@chip seiple, #7:

Not so. Very little percent wise. Can’t remember…a token 20% or 30% roughly. Most goes to foreign countries some makes it to enemies through a third party.

That’s total hogwash.

Charity Watch, a 20-year-old organization formerly known as The American Institute of Charity, has given The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation an A rating. The organization’s highest possible rating is A+. Charity Watch has determined that 89 percent of all funds raised by the Clinton Foundation go directly to it’s charitable activities. Only 11 percent goes to operating expenses. That’s better than many other charitable organizations on Charity Watch’s highest rated list. It’s better, for example, than the highly regarded Cancer Research Institute.

Here’s a list of Charity Watch’s highest rated charitable organizations, by category. The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is among them, under the category of Peace and International Relations.

Charity watch is one of the top 3 charity rating organizations in the nation, and generally considered to be the most independent.

I understand the money GWB was paid came from a private donor and not from the charity itself. What he does with the money is his business.

@Wordsmith: The facts surrounding this aren’t all out there. For example, where did the money go and who invited him to speak there? Also, the headlines make it sound like it happened a few days ago when in fact it happened in 2012. It’s an attempt by the MSM to divert attention away from Hillary. It also provides a non-issue for the Trumpster to rant about.