Critics have accused the Clinton Foundation of being a money-laundering operation in which foreign governments and multinational corporations made massive cash donations in exchange for favorable treatment from the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was America’s top diplomat in the Obama administration.
The foundation is also accused of providing a cushy sinecure for Clinton operatives in between elections.
Against that backdrop, a New York law firm apparently concluded in December 2011 that the corporate governance and legal compliance of the Clinton family so-called nonprofit was left a lot to be desired according to yet another WikiLeaks revelation, particularly as it relates to the expectation of favors for those entities writing the big checks.
From The Daily Caller:
An independent ‘governance review’ conducted by a prominent law firm that specializes in philanthropic issues concluded in December 2010 that the Clinton Foundation had a weak, rubber stamp board of directors and that many of its donors had ‘an expectation of a quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts.’
The blistering review — made public Thursday by WikiLeaks — described a tax-exempt public foundation with none of the independent oversight required under federal charity law. The Clinton Foundation reported $187 million in net assets in 2011.
On a small portion of the Clinton Foundation bank account actually goes to fund charitable endeavors, according to “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer.
Wall Street philanthropy expert Charles Ortel told the Daily Caller News Foundation that “This is a rogue charity that was out of control for years. And the trustees elected to not correct them. We’re not talking about people with no knowledge of the laws. These are people who can’t claim ignorance…This appears to be a case study in charity fraud.”
Among the 20 recommendations in the report, the legal review suggests that “We recommend that the Foundation establish a gift acceptance policy and procedures to ensure that all donors are properly vetted and that no inappropriate quid pro quos are offered to donors in return for contributions.”
It’s unknown if the Clinton Foundation ever implemented that recommendation.