The main criticism is that the Clintons have been trading personal or political favors for contributions to the foundation. The Washington Post, for example, claimed that Bill Clinton drew large speaking fees from foundation donors. Likewise, The New York Times reported that as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton helped a company run by a big contributor to acquire American uranium mines. The large amount of funds provided by foreign governments and the fact that the foundation spends much more on salaries, fund-raising events and travel than on grants have also raised eyebrows.

Chelsea Clinton and other foundation spokesmen deny any illegality and point out that its finances are more open to public scrutiny than those of most charities, who are not required to disclose the names of their donors. They also argue that the Clinton Foundation’s global reach and staff-intensive programs explain why just ten per cent of its budget goes to the organizations with which it works.

How much harm this latest controversy will do to Mrs. Clinton’s political ambitions depends on the voters. But unfortunately, facing collateral damage are the nation’s charities, which have been seeing declining public trust in how well they are using donations. The attention being given to the practices of the Clinton Foundation will do them no good.

Sources:

Rosalind S. Helderman, “For Clintons, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity,” The Washington Post.

Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation amid Russian uranium deal,” The New York Times.

James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Foreign government gifts to Clinton Foundation on the rise,” The Wall Street Journal.

IRS Form 990 (2013), Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Jesse Byrnes, “Chelsea Clinton defends family’s foundation,” The Hill.