Hillary Charges Huge Fees to Small Nonprofits

Shrillary’s Marxist, eat-the-rich rhetoric is intended to convince those with soft hearts and even softer heads that she is generous and benevolent. In reality she consistently displays the pitilessly voracious greed of a locust. Compare her to a supposedly hard-hearted Republican like Condoleezza Rice:

When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the club’s finances.

Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clinton’s appearance as from Rice’s, according to the sources and tax filings.

Instead, Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s own sprawling $2 billion charity.

This “charity” is actually a slush fund; only a token 10% of the money goes toward charitable grants. Evidently its primary purpose is to process influence peddling revenues, which poured in during Shrillary’s disgraceful tenure as Secretary of State.

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which has come under scrutiny for its fundraising and fiscal management, has taken in as much as $11.7 million in payments from other nonprofit groups.

Why would anyone who isn’t corrupt pay the Clintons to speak, considering that their absurdly inflated speaking fees are mainly a means of laundering bribes? Here’s why:

It’s not uncommon for charities to build fundraising events around speakers with “star power” to sell tickets, even if the strategy doesn’t always pay dividends, said Marc A. Pitman, a nonprofit fundraising coach. Such speakers are often expected to return some portion of the speaking fee as a “gift to the club or sponsorship of an event or underwriter for some outreach.”

But not if the speaker is as greedy as the Clintons.

Another example:

[A] small charity called the Happy Hearts Fund, which rebuilds schools destroyed by natural disasters, donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation in conjunction with a Bill Clinton speech at its 2014 gala, only after trying unsuccessfully to get him to appear for free. It reportedly was told by the Clinton Foundation that “they don’t look at these things unless money is offered, and it has to be $500,000.” The gala at which Clinton spoke brought in $1 million less than its previous gala in 2012, a Happy Hearts Fund spokesperson told POLITICO.

You don’t always get what you pay for.

Admittedly Slick Willie was willing to give a free speech for a radical homosexual activist group:

Bill Clinton has, in fact, delivered some free speeches to nonprofits, including one to the gay rights group GLAAD, which gave him an award at its April 2013 gala in Los Angeles. It paid only Clinton’s travel expenses to the ceremony, where he memorably spoke out against the Defense of Marriage Act — a bill he signed into law as president that recognized marriage as between a man and a woman, which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013.

Hypocrisy, corruption, gross irresponsibility, and pathological greed. If these qualities appeal to you, by all means vote to put the Clintons back in a position to throw their trademark monetization of power into overdrive.

Why people despise politicians.

On a tip from Apostle53. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!