Suspicion has followed around the Clintons for as long as they’ve been in national politics (longer, if you ask Arkansans).
The same can be said for their charity, the Clinton Foundation, which has long been suspected of serving as a means through which the Democratic power couple could sell their formidable influence in Washington.
One thing is certain: The organization seems to have lost much of its fundraising power since Hillary Clinton gracelessly exited presidential politics in 2016 after her surprise loss to Donald Trump in that year’s tumultuous election.
While the Clintons remain power players on the political stage, the 2016 defeat almost certainly sealed Hillary off from any hopes of returning to the presidential field. (Bill, of course, is out of the presidential stakes thanks to the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms.)
And while the foundation blames 2020’s notable lag in donations on the pandemic, it appears that the downward trend began immediately after Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations were crushed.
According to tax documents reviewed by Axios, the Clinton Foundation’s donations dropped by almost 75 percent in 2020 as compared to 2016, when fundraising was at its peak and Clinton was running for the White House.
So not only does philanthropic interest in the organization appear to have plummeted once Hillary lost her big chance, but it had previously grown to its highest point when she appeared to have a good shot at being elected president.
That’s a pretty big coincidence. Don’t you think?
In 2020, the Clinton Foundation brought in just $16 million, down from $29.6 million in 2019.
In 2016, when the Clinton name was on the ballot for the office of the presidency, the organization brought in $62.9 million.
Kevin Thurm, the Clinton Foundation CEO, wrote in a letter that accompanied the financial records that 2020 had been a “difficult year for philanthropy” and that, “Across the sector, resources were stretched thinly and fundraising activities were impacted.”
The nonprofit sector certainly felt the hit of pandemic-related disruptions. The tax and accounting firm BDO reported that about three-quarters of non-profit organizations say COVID-19 impacted their fundraising efforts.
Yet while the Clinton Foundation went fully funded in 2020 thanks to a hefty endowment it was built upon, it appears that donations have been drastically declining since its founding family left presidential politics — and not simply since the pandemic struck.
In 2017, donations had dropped by nearly 60 percent, or $36 million, a far more remarkable difference than the decline in donations between 2019 and 2020.
This certainly doesn’t quell suspicions that Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state under President Barack Obama between 2009 and 2013, was using the Clinton Foundation as a shell so she could sell influence to wealthy foreign entities.
In 2018, two forensic investigators testified before Congress that they had filed a whistleblower complaint against the Clinton Foundation alleging that the organization had engaged in criminal foreign lobbying.
The nonprofit “began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and throughout its existence,” investigator John F. Moynihan told a House panel.
“As such, the foundation should’ve registered under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act). Ultimately, the Foundation and its auditors conceded in formal submissions that it did operate as a (foreign) agent, therefore the foundation is not entitled to its 501c3 tax-exempt privileges as outlined in IRS 170 (c)2,” he said.
As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, she’s apparently convinced we still buy the line that every whisper of an accusation against her family is evidence of a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” which is a funny way of covering for what appears to be a vast, left-wing conspiracy on the part of the Democratic establishment and the mainstream media to pretend that accusations of suspicion don’t follow the two of them wherever they go.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.