What the Clinton Foundation offers is an old adage where both bribery and political philanthropy find their roots in old gift-giving practices. Corporate social responsibility becomes an expression of bonding between corporate and political elites as a way of manipulating social relationships. Not all donations are equal, even for Corporate America.
Sometimes there’s a moral clash of values from countries that have suffered natural disasters, disease epidemics, economic collapses, and so forth. The correlation between a charity’s selfishness and network requirements to raise funds is not in the best interest of the economic class that has suffered. There’s a distinct process of mutual reciprocity in the mechanism with the type of donors that make up the Clinton Foundation.
One particular image involves Bill Clinton dressed up as a Russian general for an opulent gathering at the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg. Even billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein decided to lend his private jet to Bill so that he could attend the Russian ball. Of course, Bill’s social status did not lend itself to an economy class accommodation. Unfortunately, Bill failed to tell his compatriot sex offender to donate the money spent on the private jet to the Clinton Foundation.
Charitable solicitation has become a big business in the United States. It seems that the bulk of the Clinton donors come from corporations and well-to-do individuals. Some charities are inefficient and some organizations are merely fronts for the enrichment of their organizers and consultants. What’s particularly interesting about this gala event in St. Petersburg is that there weren’t any impoverished individuals, any people suffering from AIDS, all the individuals present were like-minded individuals that catered to their social elitist status.
Even Cinderella wouldn’t have had the credentials to get into the St Petersburg gala. Cinderella was born poor but she got her wish to go to the ball only because she wanted to find love rather than money. British businessman Richard Caring was in attendance at the event amidst his scrutinized $3.4 million cash withdrawal with HSBC’s Swiss bank. The Guardian reported that HSBC’s notes involved instructions to “transfer ($1M) to Bill Clinton’s Foundation as a contribution following his involvement in the charity function.”
Most of the corporate individuals donating millions to the Foundation are not interested in the charity’s financial capabilities. They are more interested in the recognition factor that the family has to offer them. Fundraising staff, administrators, consultants, and contractors do benefit from the participation and the connectivity of these mega-donors that build a hierarchical system of elitist non-accountability.
When Bill and Hillary pronounce a speech one would imagine that some of it is personal. However in the back of their head there’s always that solicitation aspect in connecting with mega donors. This collegiality of elites will never question the Clinton Foundation’s accounting principles, fundraising expenses, or even the information regarding the facilitation of sound financial management.
When you’re dealing with political connectivity there’s no interest in cost identification, cost allocation, and even the component of cost overhead. The Clinton Foundation failed with their own enforcement in giving prepared statements and arguing their case before an administrative staff or state commission. The reason why is because of the complicated structure of the Foundation, they are not prepared to offer the general public insightful annual reports and other materials by which it represents its programs, sources of support, and expenses.
The Clinton board members should have advised their lawyers of compliant issues and to correctly point out their case to the public and donors. When a foundation has high inflated expenses the contribution for the needy is often neglected, even to Cinderella. The Clinton Foundation receives a great deal of inquiries and complaints from the general public, yet they still continue to circumvent accountability that creates an unhealthy climate for other great charities.
Inadequate financial reporting will result in future state regulators characterized by transparency laws and a systematic dissemination of financial reporting. If the public is hungry for disclosure, the Foundation should inform donors of how their contributions are spent by publishing information obtained by the charity. Having wealthy Saudis contributing money to the Clinton Foundation should raise awareness of whether or not their contribution is making a significant impact on their society.
Perhaps the Clinton fundraising professionals do not believe that charitable gifts from the Saudis are an abuse to potential donors or other citizens? Maybe the reason why is because of Clinton political connectivity absolving the Clinton Foundation from being properly scrutinized because of the perception of a selfless entity.
Eric Braverman, a prominent lawyer, was brought into the Clinton Foundation receiving $395,000 along with a bonus. Braverman wanted to implement the auditor’s recommendations (tighter governance and budgeting) to avoid conflict of interest. He resigned and went on his way leaving Chelsea Clinton with an army of personal staffers that catered to her every whim of celebrity status she’s entitled to.
Unfortunately Chelsea Clinton doesn’t quite fit the role of Cinderella. She may fit the role of Cinderella’s stepsisters, and for that she will lead a plethora of tragic consequences to all charities in America in desperate need of funding.