U.S. News & World Report: Clinton's Charity Was Already Public

[wyldwolf]

Hillary Clinton, the on-the-political-rise half of the most powerful power couple, was in hot water this week for not being public enough. In fact, though, she was more public than she had to be.

As the Washington Post reported on the front page on Tuesday, Clinton hadn't disclosed on her Senate ethics form that she is an officer of the Clinton Family Foundation, which is funded and run by her, her husband, and daughter Chelsea. Under Senate ethics rules, all senators are supposed to disclose their affiliations with any institution, whether corporate or nonprofit.

In fact, the foundation's activities were already very public. Both the senator's position with the foundation and where the money is distributed are public knowledge, available -- as mandated by law -- to anyone with an internet connection.

Had they really wanted to keep the nitty-gritty of their charity a secret, the Clintons could have parked their money in a donor-advised fund that would have kept their individual eleemosynary proclivities a dark secret.

Donor-advised funds are housed in much larger umbrella funds that administer the individual funds. The larger fund funnels requests by the donors to transfer their money to specific charities, all vetted as bona fide by the umbrella fund administrators. While the larger charity usually does reveal in the aggregate where its money goes, the individual funds' practices are not a public record.

While it is unusual for such a large charity -- the Clintons have staked $5 million to their private foundation -- to be a donor-advised fund, it's not unheard of, in part because some benefactors just don't want the world to know where their good deeds are going.

In this case, it appears that the Clintons, in going overboard to be public about their charity, were caught in a riptide of regulation.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/blogs/news_blog/070301/daily_doc_clintons_charity_was_1.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

1. OMG - she didn't disclose that she was an officer

of the Clinton Family Foundation???

Thanks for showing us this, wyldwolf.

[wyldwolf]

3. well, the allegations of impropriety on DU earlier in the week concerning this...

...certainly calls for more discussion when light is shed on the situation. Wouldn't you agree?

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Absolutely.

Thinking about Sean Hannity waxing crazy over Clinton being a officer of the Clinton Family Foundation makes me giggle.

[rodeodance]

8. I second the E-motion!

[MannyGoldstein]

2. A Clinton in Trouble Over An Ethics Form?

Say it ain't so!

[w4rma]

12. Not this time. (nt)

[SteppingRazor]

4. Meaningful, also, that this report has come from US News&World Report...

certainly far from a friend to the Clintons

[gratuitous]

5. Let's be clear about who wrote this story in the first place

While it appeared in the Washington Post, formerly a purveyor of news stories and other matters of public interest, now merely a conduit for the Republican National Committee and the Project for a New American Century, the writer of the story on the Clintons and their alleged sins was none other than John Solomon.

A reporter who draws wild conclusions from the thinnest of facts and the most egregious interpretations would ordinarily find himself in a job wearing a paper hat and inquiring whether you want fries with that. But Mr. Solomon has gone from the Associated Press to the Washington Post mostly on the strength of his "contrarian" reality: The idea that any intersection of a Democratic elected official and a perquisite is a howling example of total, naked corruption. And yet Mr. Solomon never writes about the likes of convict Duke Cunningham or convict Bob Ney, all because they have the magical "R" under their party affiliation.

The Post hired this guy knowing his track record, and he remains on their payroll, continuing his questionable career. The inference to be drawn from those facts is pretty obvious, but the Post enjoys immunity from scrutiny in the arena of public opinion.

[rodeodance]

9. yes, the post in many respects has gone downhill.

[rodeodance]

7. This article should NOW be Front page on the WPost!

[rodeodance]

10. want to email the Ombudsman? of the WPost?---address here. I just did

How do I contact the Ombudsman?
Answer
The Washington Post Ombudsman handles inquiries and commentaries only on what has appeared in the News section of the printed newspaper. He does not handle inquiries regarding the web site and its operations. For questions or feedback about the web site, its operations and online content please use the "Ask Us a Question" link provided on this page above the "Search By Keyword" field.


The Ombudsman can be contacted at 202-334-7582, Monday - Friday, 7 AM - 6 PM. You can also email him at [e-mail]

[rodeodance]

11. K