Hillary Clinton’s presidential run is prompting new scrutiny of the Clintons’ financial and charitable affairs—something that’s already proved problematic for the Democratic frontrunner, given how closely these two worlds overlap. Last week, the New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.
Giustra strenuously objects to how he was portrayed.... “We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP...
The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.”
It hasn’t. Giustra says that’s because Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered charity, from revealing its donors.... [but] Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."
Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation "does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities...
Partners and Donors
Corporate Partners:
B2Gold Corp. B2Gold Corp - Precious Metals Exploration Company -
Canaccord Adams Inc. Canaccord Genuity - Canaccord
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Business & Corporate Law Firms in Toronto | Cassels Brock
Compañía Minera Antamina S.A. Antamina
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/home/...
Endeavour Financial Ltd. http://www.endeavourfinancial.com/s/Home.asp
Ernst & Young LLP. Building a better working world - EY - United States
GMP Securities L.P. GMP Securities L.P.
Goldfields Ltd. http://www.goldfields.co.za/
Lumina Copper Corp. http://www.luminacopper.com/
Minera Yanacocha Yanacocha: Minería en Cajamarca que respeta el medio ambiente
New Gold Inc. New Gold - New Gold: Intermediate Growth Mining Producer, Company Mines in United States Mexico Australia, TSX NYSE AMEX Stocks Miner, Operations in Chile Canada
Newmont Mining Corp. Newmont Mining - Newmont Mining Corporation | Sustainable Gold Mining
Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp. Pacific Rubiales Corporation
PDAC (Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada) Home
Pinetree Capital Ltd. Pinetree Capital
Rusoro Mining Ltd. Gold Mining Company | Rusoro Mining | Junior Gold Producer - Wed Apr 29, 2015
Teck Cominco Ltd. Teck: Mining Company - Home
The Dragon Group Ltd. http://www.mint-security.com/dragon/contact.htm
TSX – Toronto Stock Exchange TMX TSX | TSXV - Toronto Stock Exchange and TSX Venture Exchange
US Global Investors Inc. http://www.usfunds.com/main_intro.asp
Project Partners:
COTELCO - Asociación Hotelera de Colombia Asociación Hotelera y Turística de Colombia | Cotelco
Fundación Carlos Slim . Carlos Slim Helú.
Fundación Pies Descalzos http://www.fundacionpiesdescalzos.com/index_es.php
PADF – Pan American Development Foundation PADF
Donors:
Robert Cross
Arthur Dalfen
Steve Dattels
Fernwood Foundation
Danny Guy
Dr. Sergey Kurzin
Paul Reynolds
Martin Walter
Neil Woodyer
Oh, hey, look, except that apparently this organization was willing to release individual donors back in 2009.
This is the same trick that 0bama has been using from day one. Fill the room full of gun smoke and the gun disapears.But where's the " smoking gun " ?? Lol !
Clinton's "Charity" is going to continue to provide problems for her.
Come on, where's the Chinese Communist Party? They must be in there for $100M or so.
/sarcasm off
Frankly I wouldn't be surprised, Clintons are totally corrupted.
Exactly!First off, I think we should have a "No Legacy" rule for president. There are enough Americans that we can find a fit person without resorting to the same couple of families
You got that right!Corporate, status quo shills.
Clinton's "Charity" is going to continue to provide problems for her.
(and the GOP will give us the same)
Unfortunately. Corporate sell outs are the favorite type of sell outs in the Republocrats.
You have to love what Obama has done for the rich. Just look at the market vs the middle class making less than when he took office. And now it is reported the national growth rate under obama has averaged less than 2% and in the last quarter is was .02% And Hillery is for the middle class are you kidding me. She and Bill have been sucking up to the supper rich for decades and are now one.
The middle class is what stands between the rich elite and their aristocracy.
And that would be who? Democrats.
Hmm. No liberal excuses yet. MSNBC must be too busy covering Baltimore to come up with a spin for the Hillary faithful. Might have to wait until Maddow comes on at 9:00
A Hillary presidency would only be a laundering front for Bill's background worldwide donations tour.
Anybody want to vote for that?
???
The Republocrats in general have worked towards the destruction of the middle class, it's hard to establish aristocracy with it.
I'm not going to defend Hillary on this - it's at least tone deaf and arguably corrupt. Bill left office and started collecting (from what I've heard) around $100 million or more in 'speaking' fees plus the millions for his foundation. I'm sure there is some genuine charitable intent in some of those donations, but only idiots believe that many/most/nearly all those donors don't also know that Hillary was SOS, and a candidate for POTUS and so no harm in making an investment in a 'relationship' with the Clinton family.
But I will say the double standard on this is pretty staggering. So, a bunch of rich people with interests in front of government gave $10s of millions to a foundation. What distinguishes that from a big donor or donors contributing $100 million or a group of them $500 million to a 501(c)(4), in secret, that will spend all that money trying to elect Scott Walker or Jeb Bush? No one skips a beat when nearly the entire GOP field appears at a fundraiser hosted by the Koch brothers. Surely no one thinks those big donors are just interested in good government. They're buying influence. It's no different in any meaningful way than the what the donors to the Clinton Foundation are doing, in the most skeptical interpretation. It's just a different side of the same coin.
Both the GOP and Democratic nominee will their own gigantic c4s out there as a vehicle for anonymous wealthy donors to buy influence, and those donations are explicitly targeted to get the candidate in office. If you're OK with all that, the disclosures about the Clinton Foundation shouldn't be any concern at all. Same song, different verse. If money = speech, and speech is good, then these donors are just going about Constitutionally protected and virtuous speech.
My own view is it's all corrupt, from top to bottom. If we let $billionaires donate unlimited sums in secret, we'll get a plutocracy, more than we already have one. But I'm AS worried about the c4s and superpacs and all the rest of the ways our government is quickly being even more captured by a handful of plutocrats. I'm not sure what the answer is, but the best I know of is public financing. The bare minimum is near instantaneous disclosure of any person or entity that contributes more than a de minimus amount (say, $1,000) to any org that has any relationship with a candidate for office.
That I disagrees and Obama is a perfect example of it.
Good post. I would counter by saying there are two problems with the Clinton thing that separate it from other fund raising problems you outlined. 1) That much of the money in question here is from foreign sources and there is something far worse to the thought that foreign money would influence American policy 2) That it is being done under the guise of a charity and that many donors and donations were not reported.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?