Red pill me on charities

>Post Clinton shit
>Red Pill me on X

Seems like you've already got an opinion famalam.

>>1813345
Was wondering more about the details behind it.

>>1813352

Open secret: when you have a campaign committee and you retire from politics you can do one of several things with the money.

1. Give it all to your party committees
2. Keep it in case you run for re-election some day or have a kid who wants to (dynasty motherfucker)
3. Give it to charity, including a charity that you personally run

501c3s are not only charities but the de facto designation of Churches. They have all kinds of weird loopholes related to the religious lobby and First Amendment that, incidentally, wind up applying to charities as well.

>more details behind it

Republicans do it. Democrats do it. Independents do it. Scientologists do it. Baptists do it. Methodists do it. The real red pill is that airing info about the Clinton Foundation was pretty much a bullshit cheap shot that you could take at any wealthy family that has held power before and anyone with half a brain wasn't swayed by it.

It's a reputable charity.
Note that despite the name, it's not a foundation in the traditional sense.
Most foundations disperse money to operating charities that actually do stuff. The Clinton Foundation is one of those operating charities. Rather than giving money to another charity to do good things, they do the good things in-house.

So when critics point out that the Clinton Foundation disperses very little of its funding to other organizations, that's true but misleading. Unlike most foundations, they're an end-line charity instead of a middleman.

>>1813369
> they do the good things in-house
The question is whether they're actually doing good things, or they're providing do-nothing jobs for their friends and family.

>>1813384

They don't have shareholders, just management. To be quite frank with you they can do both quite ably, and probably do.

>>1813384
OK so in circumstances like the Clintons sorros etc. It's easy way to give high paying jobs to friends/family. Dont they only have to give like 10% or some bullshit to actual charities? Are there any tax benefits?

>>1813339
>collect 100k
>take 50% for (((administrative costs)))
>If I didn't put this charity together none of this money would go towards the homeless ;^)

>>1813339

Most of them are shit, and just take in money to give people jobs.

>Oh here's cindy our new director of social media
> Cindy gets 85k a year to make some facebook posts and sit in on meetings

Some charities are great but there are many shams.