This is a typical Times' story of the last 25 years. An amazement that "people" don't know the true facts (whether it is about Al Gore, the run-up to the Iraq war, John Kerry's Vietnam service, and now the Clinton Foundation, after the Times has been printing dozens of story promoting a certain narrative that the "Clinton Foundation" is simply another vehicle for those grubby Clintons to acquire wealth and power. Meanwhile. "what rough beast slouches...to be born" on January 20, 2017?
91
For the best investigative reporting on the Clinton Foundation that I have been able to find I recommend googling and reading Paul Thompson's Clinton Foundation Timeline.
Mr. Thompson, a describes himself as a liberal democrat and his terrorism timeline was equally critical of democrats and republicans and was widely acclaimed for its detail and scope.
Mr. Thompson, a describes himself as a liberal democrat and his terrorism timeline was equally critical of democrats and republicans and was widely acclaimed for its detail and scope.
9
This essay is interesting, but it addresses only half of the money-flow issue. It clarifies to some degree where the money goes, but it totally ignores the question of where the money comes from. Much of the efficiency of the foundation seems to derive from the fact that it gets nearly all of its money from a relatively tiny number of donors, so its fundraising expenses are quite small (3.7% of expenses in 2014). Per the website, total foundation revenue and support in 2014 was $338 million. Also per the website, the top 24 donors in aggregate have made lifetime contributions that exceed $340 million. (By how much this exceeds $340 million we cannot tell: 7 donors greater than $25 million each and 17 donors between $10 and $25 million each).
My personal uneasiness about the Clinton Foundation has nothing to do with whether its money is being directed to improper purposes. Rather it is the likelihood that some donors view their donation as a personal favor to Bill or Hillary or Chelsea, and they expect that sometime in the future, this favor will be returned, not with cash, but with a bit of goodwill and assistance in gaining our government's cooperation with the donor's goals.
It would be interesting to see a companion essay elaborating on where the money comes from, but I don't think anything will allay my uneasiness while there is still a connection between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family. The best solution would be a clean break.
My personal uneasiness about the Clinton Foundation has nothing to do with whether its money is being directed to improper purposes. Rather it is the likelihood that some donors view their donation as a personal favor to Bill or Hillary or Chelsea, and they expect that sometime in the future, this favor will be returned, not with cash, but with a bit of goodwill and assistance in gaining our government's cooperation with the donor's goals.
It would be interesting to see a companion essay elaborating on where the money comes from, but I don't think anything will allay my uneasiness while there is still a connection between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family. The best solution would be a clean break.
31
For the life of me I cannot understand why the Clinton Campaign has not tried to sort this misinformation out. The average person has NO IDEA about the good stuff the foundation does. Most of them think it is a Clinton money making apparatus. In no way is that true, but I have never heard the campaign defend the foundation in any way shape or form. The only thing I have ever heard is Mrs. Clinton's "there is smoke" statement, which was unhelpful to say the very least.
This is a remarkable organization. Go out there and talk about it! Defend it! And do it yesterday. Because the Republicans talk about it all the time. They lie about it. And if that is the only side people hear, it is the side people will believe. This is so easy.
This is a remarkable organization. Go out there and talk about it! Defend it! And do it yesterday. Because the Republicans talk about it all the time. They lie about it. And if that is the only side people hear, it is the side people will believe. This is so easy.
69
I'd like to know what this same survey group think about the Trump Foundation.
47
One bit of opacity is that Mrs. Clinton has her foundations set up in several countries overseas. That means that she can stop payments to the ones based here all she wants but people buying access to her can still plug in their millions and expect access on the double.
The charitable payout percentages that I have heard are laughable, and then there are Hillary's deals to enrich her brother at the expense of Haitian relief efforts.
I suppose that if Al Capone had had a good enough Democrat lawyer, he'd have never had to take all those payments in cash and would never have gone to prison.
The charitable payout percentages that I have heard are laughable, and then there are Hillary's deals to enrich her brother at the expense of Haitian relief efforts.
I suppose that if Al Capone had had a good enough Democrat lawyer, he'd have never had to take all those payments in cash and would never have gone to prison.
12
You are quite simply wrong. Get your information from credible, factual sources.
34
it does not surprise me that many are clueless about the foundation. I have run into the same problem with explaining various foundations or non profit groups where I have been on the board of directors. If it had a more generic name, it would not have raised a single eyebrow. Further, if the actual aims of the foundation were described to people without being called the Clinton foundation, I suspect a vast majority of individuals would approve of what they are doing. The actual duties of the foundation are similar to a host of other foundations and non profits that do good work both here and abroad and are supported by both conservatives and liberals. The only reason the Clinton foundation is taking all the heat is simply from the name Clinton being attached to it.
45
Here's a thought--how about an article whose purpose is to inform voters of what is true about the Clinton Foundation.
85
How asking what one would ask about any charity? How much is spent on overhead expenses? Or learn to read a financial statement, and see where the money is being spent? Or maybe learn they spun off the charity that provides drugs in Africa 6 years ago. Or that the largest grants went to a board members charity, which also spends more on overhead than charitable grants? What happened to journalism in America?
4
The Clinton Foundation is just the tip of the iceberg in the sordid life of Hillary.
Her obfuscating, lying, cover ups and, to use Colin Powell's phrase, hubris, have brought her to her current collapse.
People no longer believe her and when that happens you cannot even manage to beat the most incompetent, outrageous opponent like Trump.
Which is truly sad.
I and many million other Americans will vote for someone we truly admire, who will make the best president we have had in ages, Gov Gary Johnson.
Think he cannot win?
Think again.
We are currently within 3 points of second place in a number of states and by election day will carry them with their electoral votes.
This will be a very close election. We are all seeing that happen.
It will get so close that both of the major parties will wonder who will win.
Now it is a three person race. We are on every single state ballot.
No one will get 270.
The House will decide and Gov Johnson will be the next president.
Think it impossible?
Who would have predicted any of what has happened this election.
johnsonweld.com
Her obfuscating, lying, cover ups and, to use Colin Powell's phrase, hubris, have brought her to her current collapse.
People no longer believe her and when that happens you cannot even manage to beat the most incompetent, outrageous opponent like Trump.
Which is truly sad.
I and many million other Americans will vote for someone we truly admire, who will make the best president we have had in ages, Gov Gary Johnson.
Think he cannot win?
Think again.
We are currently within 3 points of second place in a number of states and by election day will carry them with their electoral votes.
This will be a very close election. We are all seeing that happen.
It will get so close that both of the major parties will wonder who will win.
Now it is a three person race. We are on every single state ballot.
No one will get 270.
The House will decide and Gov Johnson will be the next president.
Think it impossible?
Who would have predicted any of what has happened this election.
johnsonweld.com
11
Did you read the article or do any research?
There isn't anything sordid about the foundation.
Ironically, the article is about people bringing preconceptions, which are misconceptions, about the foundation.
If you are going to hate someone, at least get your facts straight first.
There isn't anything sordid about the foundation.
Ironically, the article is about people bringing preconceptions, which are misconceptions, about the foundation.
If you are going to hate someone, at least get your facts straight first.
35
What I find baffling is that no one has raised even one hint of an accusation about a specific illicit, or even slightly inappropriate benefit anyone has received from the foundation (whether as a result of misdirected funds or through indirect "access" while Hillary was in office). Not one accusation (credible or otherwise) has been made about any specific misuse or misdirection of funds (covert or otherwise) by the foundation. Because there is no evidence that one has ever taken place.
Instead, there has been a murky campaign of innuendo and insinuation launched against the foundation merely because it was founded by the Clinton's.
They can't respond because there is nothing to respond to. Time and time again their foundation has been reviewed and investigated by watchdog organizations as well as the IRS, and consistently given A+ ratings. But simply because they are Clinton's, there "must" be something shady.
At what point is this witch hunt going to stop?
Instead, there has been a murky campaign of innuendo and insinuation launched against the foundation merely because it was founded by the Clinton's.
They can't respond because there is nothing to respond to. Time and time again their foundation has been reviewed and investigated by watchdog organizations as well as the IRS, and consistently given A+ ratings. But simply because they are Clinton's, there "must" be something shady.
At what point is this witch hunt going to stop?
87
No, you evade the point of negative attitudes about the Clintons and their foundation to phrase the question whether "booking speeches" for the Clinton Foundation is "a central activity" of their foundation. It was never the activity of the foundation to book speeches on its behalf by the Clintons. The Clinton speeches, like the $300K speakers fee Hillary Clinton demanded of the UCLA student body for a speech there, is first to line the pockets of the Clinton, then to give a little to their foundation for their annual income tax deductions.
No wonder Colin Powell complained that Mrs. Clinton took all of the annual student's guest speaking budget, so the school had no more fee to invite him or anyone else to speak.
No wonder Colin Powell complained that Mrs. Clinton took all of the annual student's guest speaking budget, so the school had no more fee to invite him or anyone else to speak.
11
I believe the article was about the foundation. What the Clinton's make independently through speeches is not tied to the work of the foundation (except to draw attention to their foundation, which happens to do miraculous work in the world like dramatically reducing the global AIDS population by, among other things, aggressive negotiations with pharmaceutical companies to provide needed medicines to world populations at affordable costs)
Their speeches do increase awareness of their important work, which leads indirectly to increased foundation contributions which extends the reach of it's powerful word. But there is nothing illicit about campaigning for your foundation. Just as there is nothing lllicit about commanding high speaking fees. Former president's and cabinet holders simply do, and the Clinton's happen to be high on that list because a lot of people happen to want to hear them speak.
What I hear you saying is that the Clinton's shouldn't accept fees that organizations are willing to pay them to speak. This is infringing on their right to prosper. This doesn't sound like something Trump would condone....
Their speeches do increase awareness of their important work, which leads indirectly to increased foundation contributions which extends the reach of it's powerful word. But there is nothing illicit about campaigning for your foundation. Just as there is nothing lllicit about commanding high speaking fees. Former president's and cabinet holders simply do, and the Clinton's happen to be high on that list because a lot of people happen to want to hear them speak.
What I hear you saying is that the Clinton's shouldn't accept fees that organizations are willing to pay them to speak. This is infringing on their right to prosper. This doesn't sound like something Trump would condone....
38
I'm convinced that "increasing awareness" is just a tactic that people u to eel good about themselves for doing "something" when in reality they've done nothing of any practical use to anyone.
3
It's sad that the voting public is so uninformed, yet develops such strong opinions.
34
You write, "A story line has developed around the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton that seems to affect how each new event is interpreted by journalists and the public..." as if journalists are allowed to be as imprecise and subjective as the public.
No. Journalists are supposed to look deeper, and, especially, to ferret out when undue influence is warping a story. You can't sit on your collective hands and say some nebulous other is shaping the story.
Why not try reporting the good stuff as being more important than the cherry-picked bad stuff? It's so easy to criticize, and play on the negatives and cool-urban-ironics fields. It's much harder to tell a real story that represents the real things people care about.
"...A type of negative Clinton branding seems to have taken over."
So get to work and stop it. Because the negatives are mostly lies. And it's your job to uncover them and report the truth.
No. Journalists are supposed to look deeper, and, especially, to ferret out when undue influence is warping a story. You can't sit on your collective hands and say some nebulous other is shaping the story.
Why not try reporting the good stuff as being more important than the cherry-picked bad stuff? It's so easy to criticize, and play on the negatives and cool-urban-ironics fields. It's much harder to tell a real story that represents the real things people care about.
"...A type of negative Clinton branding seems to have taken over."
So get to work and stop it. Because the negatives are mostly lies. And it's your job to uncover them and report the truth.
70
The New York Times has some significant responsibility for this. Times stories about the Clinton Foundation commit the cardinal journalistic sin of assuming the reader knows what the Foundation does. These stories typically do not include any information about the foundation's activities, burying the fact that this is a charitable, philanthropic organization. Hard to imagine how this consistent omission could occur.
65
Interesting...did an individual or organization pay for this survey? If not, how did you fund it?
7
Thank you, NY Times, for this article presenting Prof. Vavreck's very interesting findings. Her data confirm the passivity, biases, critical ineptitude and cowardice of much of the American press. When the Clinton Foundation was first attacked many months ago with specious claims about its activities, the press had the opportunity -- indeed, the responsibility -- to investigate those claims, confirm or refute them, and clarify the functions of the Foundation for the public. This was not done. Nor was this done for the Trump Foundation until recently.
This presidential campaign of 2015-16 has been and remains awash in lies, deceptions, deflections, and misinformation coming from all sides. Yet the press has been little but an echo chamber for the various campaigns themselves. The American Fourth Estate is moribund. It is abandoning its responsibility to be our nation's lie detector and to hold those in the public eye accountable. Here in the 21st century it serves our democracy very, very poorly.
It is believed that in 1918, US Senator Hiram Johnson said, "The first casualty when war comes is truth". That should be updated to state one of its corollaries, "The first casualty when it's political campaign time is the truth."
This presidential campaign of 2015-16 has been and remains awash in lies, deceptions, deflections, and misinformation coming from all sides. Yet the press has been little but an echo chamber for the various campaigns themselves. The American Fourth Estate is moribund. It is abandoning its responsibility to be our nation's lie detector and to hold those in the public eye accountable. Here in the 21st century it serves our democracy very, very poorly.
It is believed that in 1918, US Senator Hiram Johnson said, "The first casualty when war comes is truth". That should be updated to state one of its corollaries, "The first casualty when it's political campaign time is the truth."
43
What a curious article to be published by the NYT. Indeed there is "negative Clinton branding" that has replaced facts about the Clinton Foundation for many people. The NYT editorial board is a major source of that branding with their insinuations in place of facts. Charity Navigator gives the Clinton Foundation their highest rating of four stars. Charity Watch gives the foundation an 'A' grade. These watch dog groups require a certain level of transparency on the part of charity organizations and the Clinton Foundation meets those requirements, so the NYT claims of "operational opacity" aren't entirely credible.
75
Instead of an article about what people don't know, how about an article comparing and contrasting the Clinton Foundation to the Trump Foundation? You should have already known that majority of folks don't know enough facts about either one otherwise you would not have done the article in the first place.
92
I agree.
17
" What may be surprising is that even though there is no lack of transparency about the charitable work the foundation does, it doesn’t seem to matter. A type of negative Clinton branding seems to have taken over."....Why is that surprising. Republicans have been working over time to paint exactly that image. How many Benghazi hearings have there been? How many times has Clinton's use of a personal e-mail server as Secretary of State been investigated? If you repeat a lie over and over pretty soon gullible people think it is true. ....And Obama was born in Kenya.
49
This is not at all surprising when the media - including the supposedly liberal NYTimes and Washington Post - just jumps all over anything Trump, and can't be bothered reporting positive Clinton stories. Even today, both of these major national newspapers are full of Trump headlines, with Clinton's name only appearing in defensive sentences. Come on "liberal media" live up to your rep!
36
There may be some things that we don't know about the Clinton Foundation, but there is next to nothing that we know about the Trump Foundation. Thank goodness for David Fahrenthold (at a rival news organization) who deserves a Pulitzer for the dogged work which, so far, has revealed that Trump doesn't give a cent to his own charitable organization (unlike the Clintons, whose tax records reveal have given millions of dollars to charity), has most likely profited from it, and alleged recipients of Trump Foundation funds have never received a cent. Why don't you have your own reporters digging into that?
87
The point about general ignorance of the activities of the Clinton Foundation is well taken. If the media had reported more thoroughly on it, and if HRC had decided to go on offense and highlight what the Foundation does, voters might not be so quick to assume it's like a lot of family foundations, designed to shield wealth from taxes. At the same time, this survey has at least one weakness:
"Among people who thought they could answer a question about what the foundation does, more than half (56 percent) think that setting up speaking engagements for the Clintons is one of its activities. (. . .) Although some money from the Clintons’ speeches ends up at the charity (and the Clintons may speak on behalf of the charity), booking speeches is not a central activity of the Clinton Foundation."
If the question was about "activities" of the Foundation and not "central activities", then those 56% of respondents are correct.
"Among people who thought they could answer a question about what the foundation does, more than half (56 percent) think that setting up speaking engagements for the Clintons is one of its activities. (. . .) Although some money from the Clintons’ speeches ends up at the charity (and the Clintons may speak on behalf of the charity), booking speeches is not a central activity of the Clinton Foundation."
If the question was about "activities" of the Foundation and not "central activities", then those 56% of respondents are correct.
9
Complete this article by clearly listing the good the Clinton Foundation does do!! report!! drives me nuts.
64
The question is what percentage of money donated to HGI or its budget actually goes to genuine charitable causes?
Seems to me, of all the different percentages mentioned here, that is the one that has any objective basis and the one that really matters. Never mind what people think of the charity.
According to this Federalist piece, only 10% of its budget is spent on charitable grants:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-...
Seems to me, of all the different percentages mentioned here, that is the one that has any objective basis and the one that really matters. Never mind what people think of the charity.
According to this Federalist piece, only 10% of its budget is spent on charitable grants:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-...
4
I suggest that you look at a credible source on assessing charities such as Charity Navigator which gives the Clinton Foundation a four star rating. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=...
8
The Federalist.com as your source? Really?! It's an internet equivalent of a rag. For non-partisan truthful reporting about the Clinton Foundation, go to CharityWatch.org:
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-cl...
According to them The Clinton Foundation spends 88% of the donated Money on programs and only 2% on overhead, and that's why the Foundation gets an "A" And if you are interested in REALLY finding out what else the Foundation does, you can read up on its 990s. Of course, with a lot of people it's not about finding truth, it's just about digging in to their own narrative to serve their agenda.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-cl...
According to them The Clinton Foundation spends 88% of the donated Money on programs and only 2% on overhead, and that's why the Foundation gets an "A" And if you are interested in REALLY finding out what else the Foundation does, you can read up on its 990s. Of course, with a lot of people it's not about finding truth, it's just about digging in to their own narrative to serve their agenda.
23
best source for charitable giving i have found:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=...
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=...
9
You can’t pick a man’s pocket and give the money to the church and then hope to enter heaven for your good deed.
8
.... wait, that would be Trump, no? get the facts
14
And if you tell a lie over and over, pretty soon even the person telling the lie begins to believe it is true.
14
It isn't surprising that voters don't know about the good work the Clinton Foundation does and how it works -- look at your own reporting! The NYT is the leading the charge for negative branding of the Clintons. I used to think the NYT was the fairest and most public minded newspaper in the nation. Not any more! If Trump is elected, it's on you and your friends. You, the media, made Trump's rise possible, and fueled it again and again, by overlooking his lies, conflicts of interests and past history and instead focusing on your ever popular quest to tear HRC down. Then you blame the negative perceptions that YOU created on Clinton. It's shameful.
100
I couldn't agree more. Shame on the NYT for its intentional obfuscation when the truth matters so much at this time. Rather than having an article on how misinformed everyone is about the Clinton Foundation, why not have an article on the front page to INFORM them? Isn't that the NYT's JOB and what we subscribers are paying for?!
Remember that Trump wouldn't be where he is without the support of the white male - take a look at the makeup of most of the leadership of our media, corporations, government, etc. and his rise is not that surprising. And I apologize to all white men voting for Clinton - but this is a fact that needs to be reckoned with.
Remember that Trump wouldn't be where he is without the support of the white male - take a look at the makeup of most of the leadership of our media, corporations, government, etc. and his rise is not that surprising. And I apologize to all white men voting for Clinton - but this is a fact that needs to be reckoned with.
28
This article and the research it describes sidestep the obvious. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have long histories of doing underhanded things (not necessarily illegal), then covering them up. Their reputations persist, and therefore tarnish the trademark of the Clinton Foundation. That's how reputations work
Now, this article implies that the Clinton Foundation is a public service that does not provide private benefits to the Clintons, including Chelsea. That proposition is difficult to prove. Dollars change hands, reputations are being made, prestige is being conferred.
Surveying an uninformed public and writing an article about their ignorance only proves that the NYT has failed to inform them. Why not instead survey Clinton Foundation staff (past and present) and ask them whose interests the Foundation serves?
Now, this article implies that the Clinton Foundation is a public service that does not provide private benefits to the Clintons, including Chelsea. That proposition is difficult to prove. Dollars change hands, reputations are being made, prestige is being conferred.
Surveying an uninformed public and writing an article about their ignorance only proves that the NYT has failed to inform them. Why not instead survey Clinton Foundation staff (past and present) and ask them whose interests the Foundation serves?
11
Of course NYT should do that, but you could go on Google yourself and check the Clinton Foundation's rating as a charitable organization if you really wanted to.
8
No, the Clintons don't have a history of doing underhanded things.
They do have a 3-decade history of being lied about.
They do have a 3-decade history of being lied about.
8
A review of these comments confirms the point of the article: even among NYT's readership, there is broad streak of ignorance in the American public about the past and current work of the Clinton Foundation.
14
If there is a lack of clarity about what and how the foundation works the NYT could perform a public service by writing an in-depth series on the subject. Some questions that obviously need to be answered include what does the CF claim to accomplish and what does it actually accomplish, how does its program delivery compare with other similar efforts in terms of financial efficiency and service delivery, who does it employ, what are their compensation levels and what are their professional relationships with the family, how is family income assigned to CF, political or personal accounts, etc.
Their web site explains the goals of several laudable programs. However, most people wisely take claims on web sites and the charity rating systems with a grain of salt. Some old-fashioned journalism would be useful.
Their web site explains the goals of several laudable programs. However, most people wisely take claims on web sites and the charity rating systems with a grain of salt. Some old-fashioned journalism would be useful.
26
Everyone knows that the Clinton Foundation has made a campaign contribution to the attorney general of Florida just as she considered joining a lawsuit against....on wait, that was the Donald J. Trump Foundation, wasn't it?
38
Yet another survey that illustrates how willfully ignorant and uninformed American voters of both parties are.
7
I just looked at the CF website. Looks pretty reasonable to me. If anyone has any proof of "shady dealings" by the foundation why don't they bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities? I say put up or shut up!
32
More evidence of the dismal job even the so-called "liberal media" such as the NYT is doing in covering this election. What a sour joke that term is as Clinton's negatives remain the same or increase and Trump surges in the polls.
17
Wow - this type of ignorance and lack of interest in the foundation but still talking badly about it seems so strange - why talk when you do not know anything about what you are saying? The GOP is making hay out this type of voter apathy.
6
" A type of negative Clinton branding seems to have taken over." Why use the passive voice? It didn't just happen. This is something people did, people like Spayd and Dowd and the editors of the New York Times. Coverage of the Clintons for the past several decades is actually "deplorable". The only reason I still come to this paper every day is you are also powerful and therefore dangerous to democracy with your strange bias.
75
For whatever reason? It's really because the news media, including the NY Times and especially AP, spent many column inches insinuating that something fishy was going on when nothing of the sort was happening. "It isn’t so surprising that many voters don’t have much information about the foundation." No, it's not surprising, since various supposedly liberal news sources have spent their time reporting insinuations rather than facts.
67
Every time the NYT reports on Trump's accusations about Clinton but fails to follow with an explanation of the truth, your newspaper is culpable.
103
People know very little about the Clinton Foundation - and a lot of that is wrong - the next question might be, how did people get so misinformed? I would point the finger straight at the news media - in particular at the NYT, seeing as it's right here in front of me, but I'm sure it's true of other news outlets. Even this column only indirectly refers to what the foundation actually does and doesn't do. Wouldn't it be interesting if we were actually told about how a foundation like that actually works? And it could be put in the context of other foundations - Trump's foundation, for instance. I understand that at a certain level of wealth, starting a foundation is a pretty common practice, but most of us never get near that level. I think that's the real story here; not just our ignorance, but the structure of our ignorance, and the choice of the media not to tell us more about this sort of thing.
58
I am surprised you are surprised. Case in point - NYT reporter Eric Lichtblau breathlessly reported that Bill Clinton asked the State Dept while HRC was SOS for diplomatic passports for foundation workers. The headline read "Emails Raise New Questions About Clinton Foundation Ties With State Dept" - oh my!!!! Turns out the request was for workers who were traveling with him to North Korea as he sought to be the informal negotiator to obtain the release of 2 American journalists sentenced by N. Korea to 12 years of hard labor.....and that the State Dept never issued them. It is this kind of pseudo reporting complete with misleading titles - particularly at papers of the caliber of the NYT (which used to report facts and do comparative analysis) - that has increased the confusion about the Clinton Foundation with voters.
100
This is the Clintons' fault.
1. Have we ever seen a photo of Bill or Hillary actually in Africa or somehow seeking others to support them in their efforts? I haven't. It is very clear in my head what Jimmy Carter does with Habitat for Humanity. I have a clear picture what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does. But the Clintons do little to nothing to be open about their activities to their own (and the Democractic Party's) detriment. The only photos I generally see are of Bill partying in the Hamptons with Beyoncé or the like.
2. It is not perception. There really is a problematic relationship in a triangular fashion among (i) the Clinton Foundation's donors (ii) the speaking engagements especially for Bill at a total price tag of over $50 million and (iii) Hillary's job as Secretary of State and potentially POTUS. Why are the Clintons tone deaf to the perceived conflict of interest? Why can't Bill say "sorry, I can't speak at your company or country or event because my wife is running for President. I would be happy to speak for free, however."?
3. Whenever the Clintons first established the Foundation and Hillary wanted to be a politician, they should have made the Foundation 100% independent. As a word of warning for any future politician who wants my vote - - - you should make ALL your businesses, investments and charitable activities 100% independent in order to eliminate both the potential and perception of conflict of interests.
1. Have we ever seen a photo of Bill or Hillary actually in Africa or somehow seeking others to support them in their efforts? I haven't. It is very clear in my head what Jimmy Carter does with Habitat for Humanity. I have a clear picture what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does. But the Clintons do little to nothing to be open about their activities to their own (and the Democractic Party's) detriment. The only photos I generally see are of Bill partying in the Hamptons with Beyoncé or the like.
2. It is not perception. There really is a problematic relationship in a triangular fashion among (i) the Clinton Foundation's donors (ii) the speaking engagements especially for Bill at a total price tag of over $50 million and (iii) Hillary's job as Secretary of State and potentially POTUS. Why are the Clintons tone deaf to the perceived conflict of interest? Why can't Bill say "sorry, I can't speak at your company or country or event because my wife is running for President. I would be happy to speak for free, however."?
3. Whenever the Clintons first established the Foundation and Hillary wanted to be a politician, they should have made the Foundation 100% independent. As a word of warning for any future politician who wants my vote - - - you should make ALL your businesses, investments and charitable activities 100% independent in order to eliminate both the potential and perception of conflict of interests.
9
Try Google - I did! https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+in+africa&espv=2&...
7
Feel free to google for example: https://www.google.com/search?q=clinton in africa for foundation pictures&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
5
"As a word of warning for any future politician who wants my vote - - - you should make ALL your businesses, investments and charitable activities 100% independent in order to eliminate both the potential and perception of conflict of interests."...So when are we going to see Trump's tax returns????
15
The New York Times Editorial Board described it as a web of “tangled alliances” with “operational opacity.”
With a friend like this, who needs enemies. In America no good deed goes unpunished.
With a friend like this, who needs enemies. In America no good deed goes unpunished.
32
The last sentence says it all. The Republicans starting with Nixon embraced the Goebbels doctrine of propaganda. Tell a lie early enough, often enough and in a short period of time in becomes the "truth" overcoming and discrediting fact. This has been raised to basic operating procedure on most issues the GOP wants to promote or discredit. The American electorate is so ill informed on the issues that matter most they haven't a clue how much they don't know or the lies they believe as fact. It is sad you have allowed your country to go this far down the rabbit hole.
20
Blame yourself and your friends, NY Times. Even this story is buried; it would NEVER make top of the fold. Not when Trump "commands" you to give him free publicity and you comply.
35
Like many, I did not know very much about the activities of the Clinton Foundation. Fact checking showed that around 90% of the money spent goes to support research into AIDS feeding the poor and educating children. The Clinton's derive no income from it.
On the other hand, the Trump Foundation has used its donations to influence the US justice system ... And has had no contributions from Trump himself since 2008 ... Other than buying a Trump Oil for $20,000 from his personal foundation!
The Clinton's have earned monies essentially royalties on their books and speeches - on which they have paid tax ... My Guess that the $4 million they pay paid on their $10 million + income - is "millions times more" than Trump.
Why doesn't the NYT and other media report on the respective candidates Foundations ... It seems that doing "good" on a large scale is not as highly regarded as doing little and some of that illegally! Demand to see the Trump taxes - or at least pay for a forensic accountant to "reconstruct" a plausible scenario. Let the truth come out.
On the other hand, the Trump Foundation has used its donations to influence the US justice system ... And has had no contributions from Trump himself since 2008 ... Other than buying a Trump Oil for $20,000 from his personal foundation!
The Clinton's have earned monies essentially royalties on their books and speeches - on which they have paid tax ... My Guess that the $4 million they pay paid on their $10 million + income - is "millions times more" than Trump.
Why doesn't the NYT and other media report on the respective candidates Foundations ... It seems that doing "good" on a large scale is not as highly regarded as doing little and some of that illegally! Demand to see the Trump taxes - or at least pay for a forensic accountant to "reconstruct" a plausible scenario. Let the truth come out.
118
I don't find any of this surprising. As your own examples show, the press spent much more time raising suspicions than explaining what the foundation actually did. For people to know more, they'd have to research it independently, apart from reading about it in the press, which is unlikely to happen.
66
One reason that the American public does not know what the Clinton Foundation does is because some Democrats are more concerned about 'optics' surrounding the foundation and how their individual reputation might be affected if they were to speak in support of the foundation, rather than the millions of lives saved by the donations to the Clinton Foundation. The other reason is that the Clinton campaign and Democrats in general are just politically stupid. It is a political 'no brainer' that they should be out there for publicizing and explaining in detail the good works of the Clinton Foundation at home and abroad, instead of being on the defensive about it. Does not the lives of millions matter?
16
I agree, given everything that has happened, one would have thought that the Clinton Foundation would have done a better job of publicizing it works. Then again, in this day an age. when almost everything is readily searchable, you would hope that people would take it upon themselves to research things to be better informed. Then again, there is not much we can do about the willfully ignorant.
7
When can we expect the Times' in depth analysis of the Trump Foundation, and could a good investigative forensic accountant create a mock up of his state and federal tax returns?
47
The headline here is misleading: the Clinton Foundation has done a whole lot, a whale of a lot, of good in this world. The Clinton Foundation gets money and it moves right on through and lifts up the poor, the uneducated and the disenfranchised around the world. It provides medical care to the vulnerable. It is a great institution on the whole.
38
It always seems that the goal is to report information in the most sensationalist way to maximize eyeballs rather than to share information. I recall most of the early reporting on the Clinton Pay-to-Play scandal provided no context on what the foundation did or that the charity is highly rated. Contrast this to the Trump foundation receiving no money from Trumps since 2008 and giving money to politicians and to purchase 6ft Trump portraits. It certainly makes sense that people believe things that aren't true - but the question is what will the media do about it since apparently Americans can generally be expected to think critically (some don't have the time) about the information they receive.
29
Early reporting on this issue made no attempt to communicate what the foundation does. They went right to the possibility of quid pro quo; describing it, in terms of "what might be (theoretically) possible; with no evidence or facts.
In this election every major news source seems to be turning into FOX News. No facts, just "stories". The coverage was so bad, that I went to the CF website, to find out what the Foundation actually did. I doubt many voters made that effort.
In this election every major news source seems to be turning into FOX News. No facts, just "stories". The coverage was so bad, that I went to the CF website, to find out what the Foundation actually did. I doubt many voters made that effort.
95
I would note that my leftist (left of Democrat) friends typically have even stranger negative associations with the Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton's work in general. They believe that her program to provide free health insurance for American children is not a socialist program but a capitalist plot. They believe her foundation raises money to enrich her family, to help banks, and to support American puppets in third world nations. On the left Facebook and other social media promote Ms. Clinton as being to the right of Herbert Hoover, and meaner. This hatred driven drivel obscures any legitimate criticisms the left has of the Democratic Party and our current power structure and economic system.
36
If this is true, Clinton should announce it to the American public...ie educate the public re all the misinformation about it...
13
She defends herself all the time but many have stopped listening or call her a liar. The previously unengaged but recently interested (young Bernie supporters, independents, ...) hear the same propaganda the right has spewed for 30 years and think it's the truth. Goebbels' words are close to being a tired cliche but are still right: "If you repeat something often enough people believe it."
19
Thank you DrJim...yes Trump is democracy's answer to Goebbels.
However, Clinton camp always promotes the good work the foundation does but doesnt educate the people to the
facts Lynn Vavreck states here, ie, its main objective is charity and nothing else.
However, Clinton camp always promotes the good work the foundation does but doesnt educate the people to the
facts Lynn Vavreck states here, ie, its main objective is charity and nothing else.
4
If there is lack of transparency as you say why do you think so many people are in the dark about the foundations activities?
1
Did you misread this? The article says "even though there is no lack of transparency about the charitable work the foundation does, it doesn’t seem to matter". It is incorrect when it is " variously described as a lack of transparency or even obfuscation".
The author said there is NO lack of transparency. That is one of the mistaken Impressions. Did you just misread it? Or did you read what confirmed your opinion? What the Clinton Foundation does would be of little interest to most people if the media had not pushed the false narrative--there is no reason for them to know. Do you know what the March of Dimes does these days? Do you know about UMCOR? Do you know which ones have an A rating as charitable groups?
"What may be surprising is that even though there is no lack of transparency about the charitable work the foundation does, it doesn’t seem to matter. A type of negative Clinton branding seems to have taken over."
"What may be surprising is that even though there is no lack of transparency about the charitable work the foundation does, it doesn’t seem to matter. A type of negative Clinton branding seems to have taken over."
17
A perfect example of the problem. The article clearly says there is no lack of transparency and you read it as a lack of transparency - talk about the effect of negative Clinton branding.
16
Why do you sound surprised? For decades, the right wing and the GOP have worked non-stop to poison public perception of the Clintons and they have done everything except stand on their heads to call attention to their efforts. It's not a vast right-wing conspiracy,' it's an industry.
101
Apparently, the Clintons did not need the GOP to poison public perception. Most of it seems to be a death wish by the Clintons themselves. My guess is that more people know (and care- and not in a good way) about the Clinton speaking fees than they do about the foundation- which to many may seem like another way to simply either polish the Clinton image or distract from any negative opinions. If so, that seems to have backfired- much like HRC's seemingly unseemilgy effort to hide her recent illness. If she had been a bit more forthright (could she have been any less?) she might have seems almost human.
5
Amen, newsmaned! The unchallenged "big lie" about the Clintons continues on the front page of not just the Times but every media outlet.
Don't blame Hillary for her "lack of transparency." She is pilloried for anything she says while Trump gets a pass.
Give us all a break and begin doing some in depth stories about the positive work Foundation does that don't begin with a "pay-for-play" angle.
Don't blame Hillary for her "lack of transparency." She is pilloried for anything she says while Trump gets a pass.
Give us all a break and begin doing some in depth stories about the positive work Foundation does that don't begin with a "pay-for-play" angle.
21
The media is responsible for spreading the false information and innuendo without question and analysis. People tend to believe what they see on TV as true without question and further research.
Almost all that is believed about the Clintons is gossip and lies originating in the politically driven right wing propagandists and conspirators.
Journalism is not practiced anymore..most are biased opinion givers without merit and text readers.
Almost all that is believed about the Clintons is gossip and lies originating in the politically driven right wing propagandists and conspirators.
Journalism is not practiced anymore..most are biased opinion givers without merit and text readers.
113
Increasingly, television journalism is just repeating GOP talking points. The GOP implicitly threaten access so they have a level of influence over the political Media, especially the NY Times. Secondly, the MSM is scared to death of being accused of bias by the Right Wing. Its a shame, a not too insignificant portion of our political media has become a a rotten defeated husk.
11
NYT is very very guilty.
9
Not just right-wing media. The New York Times has done a very poor job of reporting on the Clinton Foundation. The only thing opaque about their foundation is how it has been portrayed in liberal and conservative media. I hope journalists everywhere are taking heed at the damage they have created with irresponsible reporting.
8
The foundation of the Clintons is the gathering and increasing of their personal wealth and power.
What did she say to the bankers at a quarter million a speech?
What did she say to the bankers at a quarter million a speech?
16
Which of the candidates has spent their life in public service and which has spent their life exploiting people and bankruptcy laws to get wealthy?
127
It's false statements like this that contribute to the dumbing down of our country.
Facts can be your friend if you choose it over the rhetoric.
Facts can be your friend if you choose it over the rhetoric.
31
If you're addressing one of The Deplorables, nothing you say makes any difference.
8
However, when Ms. Clinton's opponent sneezes, you can bet it'll be top of front page.