Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gronieel2 who wrote (852566)	4/27/2015 11:33:57 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574683

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ By Isabel Vincent The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month. The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends. On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fund-raising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons are on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the Foundation. In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand. Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world. But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission. Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model .?.?. doesn’t meet our criteria.” Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years. Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations. “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group once run by leading progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout. In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico. Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman. Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show. The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity. The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week. An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group refused comment. http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

To: gronieel2 who wrote (852566)	4/27/2015 11:41:20 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574683

Hillary's scandals starting to affect fundraising A sign it's over for Hillary. SI liberals, will you be laughed at as the last one defending Clinton? By Thomas Lifson The most serious threat yet to Hillary Clinton’s planned cakewalk to the presidency is finally being spoken about in public. Donors, observing that donations to Team Clinton are now under scrutiny as possible bribes, are thinking twice about investing in a candidacy that used to be seen as inevitable. Usually, such doubts are left unspoken in public. But now, a top fundraiser is obliquely expressing his fears and his plans to suspend findraising. S. A. Miller reports in the Washington Times: A top Democratic moneyman recruited by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign has put fundraising activities on hold, saying he can’t do it with a clear conscience because the former secretary of state has too many unanswered questions swirling around her. [ A Democrat with a conscience? Probably just wants to get off the Clinton train before it crashes. ] New York businessman Jon Cooper, who Team Clinton enlisted for its elite corps of early fundraisers known as “HillStarters,” said that he decided not to tap his donor network for Mrs. Clinton because she hasn’t provided enough answers about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while she ran the State Department, her exclusive use of private email for official business as America’s top diplomat and her commitment to liberal priorities. “I’m officially on the fence,” said Mr. Cooper, a bundler for President Obama’s campaigns who is active in Democratic politics in New York, which Mrs. Clinton represented in the U.S. Senate and where she has set up her campaign headquarters. Mr. Cooper is not stating any worries about being tarred with the brush of corruption for merely raising money for Hillary. But that is the clear background of his worries. Now that donations are linked to corruption, anyone with any worries about being fairly or unfairly construed as corrupt (which includes anyone with sufficient money as a donor to be notable) must think carefully about donating to Team Hillary. A vicious circle is constructing itself for Mrs. Clinton, reversing the self-reinforcing sense of inevitability that powered her juggernaut. Formerly, her people could realistically speak of raising two and half billion dollars (double the previous record for a presidential candidate’s fundraising) because she was seen as inevitable. Any potential donor would realize that donations would lead to access, which would lead to positive outcomes. And any failure to donate would also be noted. But now, the logic reverses itself. She may not be so inevitable, and a donation may lead to negative attention, perhaps leading to negative outcomes, the very reverse of what a donation might have been seen as buying. The more these doubts rise (and the revelations are continuing), the less inevitable she seems. The more doubt there is about her success, the less the payoff, and the greater the risk of critical scrutiny cast on her donors, especially if a Republican attorney general takes office in 2017 with a vow to clean up the mess in Washington. Suddenly, the calculations shift among the donor class. And Hillary, without the money advantage she had been counting on, is less fearsome to all the potential Democrat rivals who have been biding their time. The bigger they come, the harder they fall. Hat tip: Clarice Feldman Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/hillarys_scandals_starting_to_affect_fundraising.html#ixzz3YVnO6Ci3 Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter \| AmericanThinker on Facebook

To: gronieel2 who wrote (852566)	4/27/2015 1:47:06 PM
From: jlallen	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TideGlider Respond to of 1574683

April 25. 2015 7:13PM The Clinton drama: Back and bigger than everEDITORIAL Last Tuesday, The New York Times ran a story in which Hillary Clinton's campaign staffers tried to portray their candidate as the original Elizabeth Warren. One anecdote given to the Times: Seeing a chart of U.S. income inequality, Clinton said it was time for a "toppling" of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Two days later The Times published a brutal expose showing how Hillary's family charity, the Clinton Foundation, took $2.35 million in donations from the chairman of a Canadian-turned Russian-owned energy company from 2009-2013, while Hillary was U.S. Secretary of State. The donations were undisclosed despite the secretary having signed a form pledging full disclosure of donations as a condition of her becoming the nation's top diplomat. Also on Thursday, ABC News reported that Bill Clinton's average speaking fees shot up after Hillary became secretary of state. In the three years after his presidency, he averaged $150,000 a speech. In 2010-11, he was pulling down as much as $500,000, even $750,000 for a single speech, often from foreign sources. The Clinton Foundation also confirmed last week that it would amend at least five years' worth of tax returns. Among other "errors," from 2010-2012, the foundation reported zero dollars in donations from foreign governments though it received donations from foreign governments. Elizabeth Warren's crusade against the 1 percent has the aura of authenticity, even if her methods would wind up further tightening the elite's grip on Washington. By contrast, Hillary waves a wooden sword in the air, shouts lines lifted from Warren speeches, and dismisses with an unconvincing fake laugh all questions about how she became one of the 1 percent herself. This is the same woman who claimed her family was "dead broke" as they left the White House, though they bought a $2.85 million mansion during Bill's last month in office. By 2004, she was the 10th wealthiest member of the millionaire's club called the U.S. Senate. She wants to topple the 1 percent as much as Donald Trump does. The Clintons have not changed since the 1990s. They are still the same dishonest, calculating frauds they always have been. Anyone who does not see that is blinded by partisanship. Or cash. - See more at: unionleader.com