Big Storms Brewing in California, Other Places for Clinton Foundation
Telling the federal government one thing and officials in state capitals something entirely different about foreign contributions doesn't work
Government officials and other donors have routed big money to pliable politicians through “charities” whose controls are purposefully gamed for too long.
The worst offenses typically occur in high-tax states, including California, where claiming “fake” contributions offers donors the biggest after-tax value, assuming the IRS and state taxing authorities look the other way, which they do all too frequently.
With President Donald Trump well along in replacing Obama-era holdovers in the Department of Justice and the IRS, rising California Democrats like Sen. Kamala Harris and Attorney General Xavier Becerra (shown above) must abandon any public pretense of supporting the Clinton family record of fake philanthropy inside and outside the United States.
The potential costs of not doing so are growing, as maturing investigations into Clinton Foundation charity frauds by the IRS, FBI and multiple foreign governments gather momentum. So helping to cover up crimes that began in 1997 and escalated to the present is certainly not a viable option in any U.S. state, even those long controlled by Democrats.
Will Becerra finally enforce California’s strict laws? And will Harris encourage her colleagues in the U.S. Senate to bring America’s outdated system of regulating complex charities into the 21st century?
Or will both of these Democrats continue to remain in thrall to the Clintons and either help cover up or simply look the other way on blatantly illegal fundraising by their false-front and fake charities?
California should stop protecting Illegal Clinton charities. The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation filed Its 2016 Annual Report to California on Form RRF-1 seven days past the final deadline on Nov. 22, 2017. This key document was subsequently rejected.
That means the best-known Clinton charity has not been operating in full compliance with California laws for months, an adverse fact that should have been disclosed in other U.S. states where Clinton charities solicit donations, especially including New York.
Another glaring problem with the rejected California filing is that the total revenues of $77 million declared for the whole of the Clinton Foundation are much less than the $217 million in combined grants and contributions claimed on its 2016 external audit, which is available on page 5.
The calculation is: Total contributions of $135,445,489 plus total grants of $81,153,172 equal combined revenues of $216,598,561, which rounds up to $217 million. This large discrepancy is only part of the problems facing the Clinton Foundation in California.
On Feb. 22, 2018, Becerra demanded receipt of information concerning “all government funding, including grants from foreign governments” received by the foundation during 2016. The deadline for receipt is March 24, 2018.
(To see this, go here, then, punch in 311580204 to the FEIN field and hit the link for the Foundation. When the results emerge, you will see a link, “CT=550 Form RRF-1 Incomplete,” towards the bottom. Above that, in the digest of RRF-1 reports, you will see the Nov. 22, 2017, filing date and the evident “rejection.”)
California charity laws are tougher than those in many other U.S. states. In California, for example, charities must disclose particulars concerning all government grants, including those by foreign government entities.
These particulars, including amounts, are available to state regulators because California also requires that charities disclose (confidentially) the names of all donors giving 2 percent or more of total revenues in a given year, as listed on Schedule B of their federal tax filings.
The Clinton Foundation’s 2016 federal filing poses additional problems. Total revenues declared in Part VIII, line 1h, were just $63 million, or $14 million less than the amount declared …
The Clinton Foundation’s 2016 federal filing poses additional problems. Total revenues declared in Part VIII, line 1h, were just $63 million, or $14 million less than the amount declared on the California RRF-1 filing — and a whopping $154 million less than the figure independently confirmed by auditor CohnReznick.
Why so many large discrepancies?
The largest recipient of grants and contributions seems to be a separate entity called Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc. (CHAI), whose results, in theory, were consolidated into audited Clinton Foundation financial statements but excluded from California filings.
The piece of the Clinton Foundation that governments appear to support most actively is CHAI, at least according to CHAI marketing materials. Canada, Norway, Sweden, Australia, the United Kingdom, and a government consortium (including the Gates Foundation) called UNITAID may have contributed more than $25 million each through Sep. 30, 2017.
Are CHAI’s filings in California complete and true? Do roosters lay eggs?
To be continued.
Charles Ortel, a retired investment banker, concentrates on exposing complex frauds in his new career as an investigator, writer and commentator. Since August 2017, he has been hosting the “Sunday with Charles’ podcast and covering the Clinton Foundation case in depth, using publicly available source materials.