Mr. Band writes that he and his colleague Justin Cooper “have, for the past ten years, served as the primary contact and point of management for President Clinton’s activities—which span from political activity (e.g., campaigning on behalf of candidates for elected office), to business activity (e.g., providing advisory services to business entities with which he has a consulting arrangement), to Foundation activity.”
This excerpt and all the potential conflicts it describes, plus Chelsea’s warning about business “hustling” at foundation events, would seem more than ample cause to trigger an IRS audit of the foundation. For that matter, why aren’t the IRS and prosecutors already on the case? Any normal foundation has to keep records to show it is separating its nonprofit activity from any for-profit business.
Mr. Band’s memo confirms that donors were not seeking merely to help the sick and the poor. He explains that the Clinton Foundation had “engaged an array of fundraising consultants” over the past decade but “these engagements have not resulted in significant new dollars for the Foundation.” In other words, it wasn’t working as a conventional charity.
Mr. Band then explains how he and his Teneo partner Declan Kelly had to carry the fundraising load, and did so by packaging foundation solicitations with other services such as a meeting with Bill Clinton, $450,000 speeches or strategic advice. Many of the donations, from U.S. companies like Coca-Cola and Dow Chemical and foreign firms like UBS and Barclays, occurred while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
Why exactly were donors writing checks? The Band memo makes clear that donations untied to additional Clinton or Teneo services weren’t all that appealing to potential supporters. This is significant, because the large grant-making foundations in the U.S. are almost entirely run by Clinton voters. So you know they weren’t turned off by the brand name. They’d contribute more if they thought they were also buying goodwill and influence with a current Secretary of State and a potential future President.
The rest is at the WSJ
The Clinton Foundation has received highest possible ratings from both Charity Navigator and Charity WatchDog.
The Trump Foundation has received the lowest possible rating from both.
Oh look over there! Ten years ago, Trump said a dirty word!!!
@john: Because the Clinton Foundation fudged the mandatory reports. Ratings can only be determined by official reports and the Clinton Foundation reports were fixed. Even Chelsea identified that.
@john: Yeah… there’s a reason it did, too.
Charity Navigator gets favors from Clinton Foundation, then gives them 4-star rating
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/01/clinton-foundation-doles-out-favors-gets-four-star-rating-in-return-on-charity-website/
The Infernal Robbery Service is too busy harrasing conservatives under Obama the Stinks
@john: Really? It has been found that the clinton foundation considers talking to an organization donating. Their donations are mostly overhead and very little goes to really help anyone. After saying that the clinton foundation gave over 1 million dollars to the clinton charity last year; it saved them over $350k in taxes. A great deal if you can get it. Don’t be so naive. These people are predators.
@Randy: The tax filings are often more reliable than Leftist stooges; they show charitable contributions well above 5%.