Bill Clinton foundation has spent more than $50M on travel expenses

[j-mac]

WASHINGTON – Bill Clinton’s foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit’s tax forms reveal.The web of foundations run by the former president spent an eye-opening $12.1 million on travel in 2011 alone, according to an internal audit conducted by foundation accountants. That’s enough to by 12,000 air tickets costing $1,000 each, or 33 air tickets each day of the year.
That overall figure includes travel costs for the William J. Clinton Foundation (to which Hillary and Chelsea are now attached) of $4.2 million on travel in 2011, the most recent year where figures are available.

Bill Clinton foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses - NYPOST.com

Oh man! $50 million? That is truly 1%er figures.....I wonder when OWS will camp on their doorstep?....Private Jets, Flying 'students', multiple international trips for Hillary, and Chelsea....Liberals have the nerve to furl their brow's when an SUV passes by, yet I am sure this carbon foot print is ok for them....

Remember friends, the rules that a liberal progressive lays out for you never is meant to apply to themselves....

 

[ttwtt78640]

Oh man! $50 million? That is truly 1%er figures.....I wonder when OWS will camp on their doorstep?....Private Jets, Flying 'students', multiple international trips for Hillary, and Chelsea....Liberals have the nerve to furl their brow's when an SUV passes by, yet I am sure this carbon foot print is ok for them....

Remember friends, the rules that a liberal progressive lays out for you never is meant to apply to themselves....

I am sure that transportation is not the majority of these "travel" costs. These folks do not stay at Motel 6 and eat fast food - they tend to prefer the "presidential" suite at luxury establishments and dining at 5 star retaurants or well catered affairs.

 

[longview]

While he is still using OPM (other peoples money) at least now it is money
that people choose to give him.

 

[Grant]

Oh man! $50 million? That is truly 1%er figures.....I wonder when OWS will camp on their doorstep?....Private Jets, Flying 'students', multiple international trips for Hillary, and Chelsea....Liberals have the nerve to furl their brow's when an SUV passes by, yet I am sure this carbon foot print is ok for them....

Remember friends, the rules that a liberal progressive lays out for you never is meant to apply to themselves....

Despite logging up all those miles and spending all that money she don't in no way feel no way tarred. Hillary Quoting James Cleveland - "I Don't Feel Noways Tired - YouTube

 

[rocket88]

Oh man! $50 million? That is truly 1%er figures.....I wonder when OWS will camp on their doorstep?....Private Jets, Flying 'students', multiple international trips for Hillary, and Chelsea....Liberals have the nerve to furl their brow's when an SUV passes by, yet I am sure this carbon foot print is ok for them....

Remember friends, the rules that a liberal progressive lays out for you never is meant to apply to themselves....

Typical Con strawman "Lberals say this..." when no liberal ever really says that except in your head. I've never heard a liberal say that people shouldn't be able to spend their own money on whatever they want.

This is foundation money, not government money. It's not your money, it's not your outrage. Are you just bored that there's nothing worth the effort to bash Libs?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion on Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea possibly misusing funds, as long as they're not government funds. The people who donate to this vanity project for the Clintons can either challenge it or stop donating. I'd never donate to anything they're involved with and if it keeps all of them away from the public purse, let them knock themselves out.

 

[Navy Pride]

Does this surprise anyone? The guy is the biggest crook ever to be president...............Hillary is a habitual liar and she will be next.

 

[j-mac]

Typical Con strawman "Lberals say this..." when no liberal ever really says that except in your head. I've never heard a liberal say that people shouldn't be able to spend their own money on whatever they want.

This is foundation money, not government money. It's not your money, it's not your outrage. Are you just bored that there's nothing worth the effort to bash Libs?

Sure, when it's a liberals money we can't touch it, but when it is a capitalists money then all bets are off, go for it eh?....

 

[rocket88]

Sure, when it's a liberals money we can't touch it, but when it is a capitalists money then all bets are off, go for it eh?....

Again, the only people saying that are the Liberals in your head that don't really exist.

 

[Montecresto]

Oh man! $50 million? That is truly 1%er figures.....I wonder when OWS will camp on their doorstep?....Private Jets, Flying 'students', multiple international trips for Hillary, and Chelsea....Liberals have the nerve to furl their brow's when an SUV passes by, yet I am sure this carbon foot print is ok for them....

Remember friends, the rules that a liberal progressive lays out for you never is meant to apply to themselves....

This is true. It's also true about conservatives.

 

[Redress]

Sure, when it's a liberals money we can't touch it, but when it is a capitalists money then all bets are off, go for it eh?....

It is not liberals money, it is a nonprofits money. Do you go through the books of other nonprofits too? Bet you don't...

Hint: your outrage here is as phoney as a three dollar bill, your ignorance of what liberals think is painful, and your fear of Clinton as a presidential candidate in 2016 is palpable.

 

[Grant]

I've never heard a liberal say that people shouldn't be able to spend their own money on whatever they want.

You've never heard a liberal say the rich should pay more taxes?

 

[Grant]

Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion on Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea possibly misusing funds, as long as they're not government funds. The people who donate to this vanity project for the Clintons can either challenge it or stop donating. I'd never donate to anything they're involved with and if it keeps all of them away from the public purse, let them knock themselves out.

The problem appears to be that the Clintons are using the Clinton Foundation as a 501(c)3 tax free non-profit organization while Hillary Clinton is using it as a springboard to the Presidency. Recall this was the same tax code under which the IRS investigated conservative groups.
This from the NYT, and even they have trouble with it. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/u...ion-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?hp&_r=1&

Hillary Clinton's next act: The family foundation - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com

Robert Gibbs has said she intends to use the Foundation as a "springboard to the Presidency', which is clearly illegal.

 

[j-mac]

It is not liberals money, it is a nonprofits money. Do you go through the books of other nonprofits too? Bet you don't...

Hint: your outrage here is as phoney as a three dollar bill, your ignorance of what liberals think is painful, and your fear of Clinton as a presidential candidate in 2016 is palpable.

Puhleeze...I know liberal progressives like the back of my hand..And my outrage? I am not outraged my angry friend, nor am I scared of Hillary. I don't want her anywhere near the oval office sure, but 2016 is a long way off.

I think your act of indignant anger is wearing thin, most people just roll their eyes anymore.

 

[Redress]

Puhleeze...I know liberal progressives like the back of my hand..And my outrage? I am not outraged my angry friend, nor am I scared of Hillary. I don't want her anywhere near the oval office sure, but 2016 is a long way off.

I think your act of indignant anger is wearing thin, most people just roll their eyes anymore.

If you know it so well, how come you always get it wrong?

 

[j-mac]

If you know it so well, how come you always get it wrong?

"wrong" is subjective, I think the same of your theories about conservatives.

 

[Redress]

"wrong" is subjective, I think the same of your theories about conservatives.

You do not even know what my theories about conservatives are. And wrong is not subjective. Keep trying though. Maybe you can manufacture something out of nothing here, but I doubt it.

 

[j-mac]

You do not even know what my theories about conservatives are. And wrong is not subjective. Keep trying though. Maybe you can manufacture something out of nothing here, but I doubt it.

:lamo You have over 64K postings.....I think everyone knows your crackpot theories....

 

[obvious Child]

Oh man! $50 million? That is truly 1%er figures

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/assets/files/reports_cf/2011/2011ClintonFoundationIRS990.pdf

Meh.

Look at the size of it. You're barking up the wrong tree here.

Articles like these are meaningless until they present the size of the organization.

Also, your partisan hackery is showing.

 

[obvious Child]

The problem appears to be that the Clintons are using the Clinton Foundation as a 501(c)3 tax free non-profit organization

You have proof this?

FYI, you're dealing with a CPA who has years in non-profit work. You make an ignorant comment, I will point it out.

while Hillary Clinton is using it as a springboard to the Presidency

Conjecture at the moment, probably true, but still conjecture. Furthermore, hacks will argue that any promotion of Clinton will do this. Even if the activities that are involved have nothing to do with her Presidential Campaign.

Recall this was the same tax code under which the IRS investigated conservative groups.

Flat Up Wrong. There has been nothing about the Clinton Foundation being used as a non-profit to directly provide political advertising for Clinton or against her potential opponents. You are entirely wrong here and you are highly ignorant of what the code actually says. Saying that the code in which the IRS went after political groups (including liberal ones, which were the only ones denied, I see how you left that out), and this is extremely wrong. Clinton getting exposure from non-profit work such as disease prevention is not the same as running a non-profit that doesn't have to disclose donors and using it to directly influence political campaigns by explicitly endorsing or attacking candidates. Learn the law before opening your mouth.

This from the NYT, and even they have trouble with it. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/u...ion-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?hp&_r=1&

How does this support your claim at all? Did you even read the article? Where does it say anything that supports your claims?

They will work on organizing Mrs. Clinton’s packed schedule of paid speeches to trade groups and awards ceremonies and assist in the research and writing of Mrs. Clinton’s memoir about her time at the State Department, to be published by Simon & Schuster next summer.

The only part of the article that remotely supports you is this, but that depends how it's done. Writing up a biography used on the website or to be read before she speaks is hardly the same as running an ad in a state saying X candidate is bad.

Robert Gibbs has said she intends to use the Foundation as a "springboard to the Presidency', which is clearly illegal.

Why? How is using a non-profit to raise your exposure without direct political activity equate to breaking the 501(c) law?

You made so many errors here it's not funny.

 

[obvious Child]

You do not even know what my theories about conservatives are. And wrong is not subjective. Keep trying though. Maybe you can manufacture something out of nothing here, but I doubt it.

One merely needs to take a look at the current size of the foundation via the publicly posted 990 to see there's not much to this claim. The Clinton Foundation has been posting its 990 to the internet for years and we've heard essentially nothing from anti-Clinton groups. It's been 10 years of returns that detail what the foundation does. You'd think that those salivating over such public information would have said something by now.

The travel expenses were less than 10% of the assets and are included in the non-profit activity. You can't do non-profit work overseas without travel.

 

[Thrilla]

well, if you have a problem with the amount of the travel expense, then don't give any money to the organization.... those whom do give money will have to live with the fact that they spend lavishly on travel expenses.

 

[obvious Child]

well, if you have a problem with the amount of the travel expense, then don't give any money to the organization.... those whom do give money will have to live with the fact that they spend lavishly on travel expenses.

Are we sure it's lavish?

I look at their payroll for officers and it's fairly low compared to some of the non-profits of similar size.

Page 7 of the return shows the CEO making under $300,000. For a non-profit with activities all over the global and net assets of nearly $200 million, that's low pay. Only the CFO is making over $150k, the rest are under $150k.

And a fair amount of the travel looks like supervising and oversight of their existing projects. For groups that want more oversight of spending, it seems rather....hypocritical to come down on an organization doing just that.

People who talk about certain non-profits and then never read the 990 can't be taken seriously. Read the return before you comment on what's going right or wrong. Is that too much to ask these days?

 

[sangha]

$5mil/yr doesn't sound high for an org that has projects going all over the world

 

[obvious Child]

$5mil/yr doesn't sound high for an org that has projects going all over the world

I have a hard time believing the travel is lavish when they pay their executive staff comparatively little money. Lavish travel spending tends to follow excessive pay. The Foundation's 990 shows relatively low pay for the size. Furthermore, you are right that $5 million per their 990 for travel isn't high considering the size of some of their programs flung across the planet.

But that would require people to read the 990 and get informed rather than just mouthing off without any frame of reference or understanding as we've seen several people in this thread do.

Travel of $50,000 compared to $12 million looks low, but it's not if its on an organization who's assets are just $200,000 and bring in just $20,000 a year in revenue. One has to look at the size of the expense to the size of the organization and what it does. But I think if you do that, you aren't allowed into the Partisan Hackjob Club.