It takes more than one voice shouting lies to create The Big Lie. WaPo’s Fact Checker service has decided to award “Four Pinocchios” to a recent statement by Brad Parscale accusing the Clinton Foundation of being a slush fund, while claiming the Trump Foundation is absolutely pristine:
The New York Post report claimed that the Clinton Foundation took $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid, based on 2013 tax filings. But as we explained, it is a public charity. The ratio of 6.4 percent toward charities and 93.6 percent toward expenses, suggested by the tax form and repeated in the chart, is based on a misreading of the tax documents filed by the foundation.
By contrast, the American Institute of Philanthropy’s CharityWatch gives the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating, its second-highest efficiency rating, which is based on the percent of total expenses a charity spent on its programs in the year analyzed and the cost to raise $100.
For 2016, according to tax documents and audited financial statements, the Clinton Foundation spent 88 percent of its cash budget on programs, compared to 12 percent on overhead, such as fundraising, management and expenses. The organization also calculated that it costs the Clinton Foundation only $2 for every $100 it raises.
In other words, the reality is almost the opposite of what Parscale portrays in his chart. Indeed, CharityWatch includes the Clinton Foundation on its list of top-rated charities.
Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation appears to be … a slush fund:
But Trump twice used the charity’s money to settle legal disputes that involved his for-profit businesses, the New York attorney general alleged. He also engaged in other instances of self-dealing, such as paying $10,000 to buy a portrait of Trump that was found hanging in one of his golf resorts. The foundation also donated $25,000 to a Florida political group aiding the reelection effort of state Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) — and was used to benefit his presidential campaign, the lawsuit said.
The problem, of course, is that these days, the frantic rush of life means that follow-ups and rebuttals are rarely read by those who get the first reports. No doubt there are many people who believe the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund, despite its high ratings by neutral observers.
The lack of allegiance to the truth, as evidenced by Parscale, is a sad commentary on the ideological warriors of either side. But if you were wondering about the Clinton or Trump Foundations, this report is a good place to go.
