400 Bad Request

Bad Request

Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.

Additionally, a 400 Bad Request error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

 

Archive for the ‘Fundraising’ Category

What happened to the $6Million Trump Raised For Veterans

Friday, March 4th, 2016

Foundation road thumbnail

This is an investigative piece from The Washington Past that ran yesterday, March 3 2016. We’re interested in it partially because it discusses transparency in foundations and NGOS, and in particular, a major political candidate’s handling of donated funds, always a huge issue,  and we hope that journalists get to the bottom of this story reasonably quickly, before the Trump University case gets settled 6 years from now,  but we’re also interested because it discusses the landscape of Veteran NGOS, which we think is very important to understand and simplify and be a part of. It’s known to not be the sanest and easiest landscape, and it does not have to be that way. Looking into that landscape to us is really very essential.

Trump Chack

At a town hall in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr., present a big $100,000 check to Partners for Patriots, an organization dedicated to providing service dogs to disabled veterans. (Reuters)

In recent days, after the campaign initially did not provide details of where the money had gone, The Post had undertaken its own accounting. After contacting each of the 24 charities that Trump had previously listed as his beneficiaries, The Post had accounted for less than half of the $6 million.

Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Trump’s campaign, said Trump still intended to give the rest of the money away to veterans groups. She also criticized the news media for repeated inquiries into what became of the funds.

“If the media spent half as much time highlighting the work of these groups and how our veterans have been so mistreated, rather than trying to disparage Mr. Trump’s generosity for a totally unsolicited gesture for which he had no obligation, we would all be better for it,” Hicks wrote in an email.

Trump’s fundraiser highlighted the billionaire presidential candidate’s remarkable ability to draw people, attention and money to any cause he chooses. Trump enticed enormous gifts from wealthy friends, including Stewart Rahr, a colorful New York philanthropist who calls himself “Stewie Rah Rah, the Number One King of All Fun.” Their money became life-altering gifts for some small charities, which received $50,000 or $100,000 each.

But the aftermath of that event showed another side of Trump’s campaign: its tendency to focus on front-end spectacle over back-end details. The rollout of contributions has raised questions about how long Trump would keep donated funds within the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a personal charity whose gifts can boost his political brand.

“Where’s the rest of the money going?” said Keith David at the Task Force Dagger Foundation, which offers support to Special Operations personnel and their families.

David’s group typifies the confusion over Trump’s money. It was listed by Trump as a group that would benefit from his fundraising. And soon after the Iowa fundraising event, the group got a check for $50,000. It came from Rahr’s foundation, with a note that mentioned Trump.

But was that it? The group’s board — noting the huge amount of money that Trump raised and the lesser amount of money Trump seemed to have given out — decided it could not be.

“There’s a large chunk missing. I’m just kind of curious as to where that money went,” David said. “I’d like to see some of it come to us, because we are on the list.”
The list, as given out by Trump’s campaign Thursday, does not show any more donations going for David’s group.

Trump’s veterans fundraiser was, if nothing else, a smart bit of political theater.

It allowed Trump, who was feuding with Fox News Channel at the time, to boycott a GOP debate that Fox was hosting — and, at the same time, claim both the moral high ground and a prime-time TV spotlight for himself that competed directly with the debate he was skipping.

“We set up the website. I called some friends. And the sign was just given: We just cracked $6 million,” Trump said, savoring the moment at the end. He announced that the money would be divided among more than 20 veterans’ groups: “They’re going to get a lot of money. Everybody is going to get a lot of money,” he said.

Some of that money was raised from small donors online, at the website donaldtrumpforvets.
com. That site now says it has raised $1.67 million.

But the bulk of the $6 milllion was raised from a small group of Trump’s very wealthy friends.

Not all of them gave in the same way.

Billionaire investor Carl Icahn gave $500,000 and sent it directly to two groups: a charity to help Army Green Berets and another for Navy SEALs. Another $1 million came from Rahr.

Trump offered Rahr a menu of veterans’ charities, Rahr associate Steve Burns said in an email. Rahr chose 11, based on a review of “missions and financials. We felt they were the best ones in helping the vets,” Burns said.

The $1.5 million in donations from Icahn and Rahr, which bypassed the Trump Foundation, are easy to track. Associates of the two men said they have given the money directly to the charities, and multiple charities said they had received it.

But other benefactors gave their money to the Trump Foundation, so Trump could divvy it up himself. One was Phil Ruffin, a Las Vegas casino mogul, who gave $1 million. “He trusts Mr. Trump to make that decision,” a spokeswoman said.

In all, Trump’s campaign said the Trump Foundation had given out about $1.1 million so far. Hicks, Trump’s campaign spokeswoman, did not immediately respond to a question about how much of the money raised for veterans remains in the accounts of the Trump Foundation.

In the days that followed the Iowa fundraiser, the donations — ostensibly, apolitical gifts to needy veterans — became a centerpiece of Trump’s campaign rallies. He would frequently call the leaders of local charities up onstage and hand them a huge check in front of the cameras and the crowds.

“I thought I was going to faint, because we had no idea — until that check came up on the stage — we had no idea what we were getting,” said Cindy Brodie of Partners for Patriots, which trains service dogs to help veterans with disabilities.

At the time of Trump’s fundraiser, Brodie and her husband had been struggling to keep themselves and the charity afloat. But then a veteran whom they had helped met Trump at a campaign event elsewhere in Iowa.

And then Brodie was being called up onstage by the billionaire and handed an oversized $100,000 check.

But — after the campaign moved on from Iowa — Trump’s donations seemed to lag behind his promises. In early February, the Wall Street Journal reported that many groups began to get their checks only after the Journal asked the Trump campaign why they had not.

Trump’s figures show the biggest beneficiary was the Navy SEAL Foundation, a Virginia-based group that helps Navy Special Operations forces and their families. It received $450,000, according to Trump’s campaign. The Green Beret Foundation, which helps Army Special Forces soldiers and their families, got $350,000. Two other groups got $200,000. Fourteen charities got $100,000 each. Six got $50,000 each, and two others got less.

“Our budget is, like, $40,000 a year,” said Sarah Petersen, the founder of Support Siouxland Soldiers, which provides emergency relief to homeless or near-homeless veterans in Iowa. Trump gave the group $100,000. “Our largest donation was $10,000. So this is a pretty big deal for us.”

Hicks, the spokeswoman for Trump’s campaign, declined to give details about how the rest of the money would be handed out.

“We will continue to allocate contributions to groups that have been announced,” Hicks said, “as well as additional groups that are being considered.”

What additional groups?

Hicks could only name one: a Queens-based nonprofit called Veterans-in-Command, which provides housing, food and job counseling to veterans. In that case, the Trump Foundation dipped into its veterans funds to present a donation.

Which happened to solve a political headache for Trump himself.

At the time of the donation, the New York media was mocking Trump for mishandling a past request the group had made for a donation. Instead of money, the Trump campaign had sent them Trump bumper stickers.

“He called us, and he apologized, and he did the right thing by us,” said Larry Robertson, the Queens group’s president. Trump paid off some old debts and paid for one year’s rent on a new office, a total gift worth about $26,200.

That was 0.4 percent of the money Trump said he’d raised for veterans. The Queens group is hoping it is the beginning, not the end, of a relationship.

“We’re going to have a grand opening. Hopefully he’s going to be here,” Robertson said in a telephone interview. “It’s going to be about another week. He’ll be here.”

Share

The details of Sasha Baron Cohen and Isla Fisher’s Donation to Syria’s Victims

Tuesday, January 26th, 2016
BEVERLY HILLS, CA - NOVEMBER 09: Actor Sacha Baron Cohen and actress Isla Fisher with Stylebop.com attend the 2013 BAFTA LA Jaguar Britannia Awards presented by BBC America at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on November 9, 2013 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Michael Kovac/Getty Images for BAFTA LA)

BEVERLY HILLS, CA – NOVEMBER 09: Actor Sacha Baron Cohen and actress Isla Fisher with Stylebop.com attend the 2013 BAFTA LA Jaguar Britannia Awards presented by BBC America at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on November 9, 2013 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Michael Kovac/Getty Images for BAFTA LA)

Respectb

Ali G and Brother Phil G. who works in the menswear department at Harrods.

Hollywood couple Sacha Baron Cohen and Isla Fisher have donated $1 million to support victims of the conflict in Syria.

The money will be split equally between two international non-governmental organizations: Save the Children and the International Rescue Committee.

Half the money will fund a program to vaccinate more than 250,000 children against a potential measles outbreak in northern Syria, according to Save the Children. The other half will go toward education, health care, shelter and sanitation to support families — particularly women and children — both inside Syria and in neighboring countries who are suffering as a result of the ongoing conflict.

Sacha Baron Cohen Surprises Jimmy Kimmel as Borat
“By allowing us to make their generous donation to Syrian children public, Sacha and Isla are helping highlight the tragedy of the issue today,” said Justin Forsyth, CEO of Save the Children. “These are desperate times for Syrian families facing bombs, bullets and torture in Syria. The couple’s donation will save many thousands of lives and protect some of the most vulnerable children.”

David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee added, “Sacha and Isla’s donation is a great expression of humanity, and a challenge to do more for the most vulnerable. I hope it is an example to many others seeking practical ways of making a difference during the Christmas and New Year season.”

Reps for the two actors did not immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.

 

 

`[user-submitted-posts]`

Share

Foundation Road

Saturday, September 5th, 2015

Foundation Road 525

 

Healthcare 2.0

Share

Effective Altruism: Peter Singer’s “The Most Good You Can Do”

Thursday, July 9th, 2015
“The Most Good You Can Do” Author Peter Seeger

Australians give more than $2.2bn a year to charities – but how well is that money spent? This conundrum is tackled by the philosopher Peter Singer in his new book The Most Good You Can Do.

Singer espouses the benefits of a growing movement called “effective altruism”, which demands targeted, evidenced-based giving that does the most good to alleviate poverty and reduce suffering.

Singer’s book is full of vignettes of people such as his former student Matt Wage, who decided to embark upon a career on Wall Street purely because he could earn more money to give away.

Effective altruists have worked out, Singer argues, that you can comfortably live without, say, 10% of your income and provide a net benefit to the world. He spoke to Guardian Australia about the book.

Oliver Milman: How would you describe effective altruism in a nutshell?
Peter Singer: It’s people who want to make a significant contribution to making the world a better place. That’s the “altruism”. “Significant” can mean 10% of your income, but for some people that can mean time or another contribution.

The second part is thinking about how to maximise what I’m giving – the time, the money, the skill – to make the world a better place. That’s where the head part of it comes in.

So are most people giving to charity for essentially selfish reasons?
There are a lot of “warm glow” givers. There are a lot of people giving without doing any research at all about whether their gifts are effective. So that’s a big problem.

I’m not so worried by people’s motivation. Maybe people do it because it makes them feel good. I’m not going to say “it makes you feel good so it’s not a sacrifice, you’re not an altruist”. I think that’s the wrong way to think about altruism.

We want to think that people who help others are altruists. We want people to feel good about giving, not good because they’ve got a bigger yacht than the next guy.

You talk about charities using pictures of children and animals, rather than hard details, to elicit a response.
It’s what people say about newspapers – the public gets what it deserves. People are prompted by the smiling faces and in some cases are even put off by too much detail and transparency, it’s hard to blame the organisation for doing this.

Advertisement

What’s pleasing is that there is a new breed of organisation that is appealing to the savvier group of donors who want information, they want hard information about what’s happening with their money, they want transparency.

Should there be a data-driven approach?
It’s fairly data-driven and certainly some people are like that. It’s not an accident that a lot of people into effective altruism are from the hedge fund area, computer-based stuff, startups and the like.

It’s all very pragmatic, isn’t it?
In the way of achieving an effect, yes, it’s completely pragmatic. Charity is a huge thing, in the US it’s $230bn a year, so it’s pretty big by any standards. And yet a lot of it isn’t going to the right place.

What information should altruists be looking for?
Firstly they should be saying “we chose this particular intervention because the data showed us”. So, they chose to distribute a certain number of bed nets in malaria-prone areas because there is data showing that is an effective way of preventing people getting sick and dying.

Take a larger organisation, such as Oxfam. I’d like to see them say, “We have a large number of projects and we chose these projects as a result of the following process.”

Who decides whether Oxfam would spend money on a rural savings and loans program in rural Mali and that it would spend money on assistance for relief from a cyclone? How were those decisions made?

Oxfam’s supporters don’t know the answer to that and it would be good to see the data upon which those decisions were made. Preferably, there would be independent evaluations of those projects.

I’m hoping the word gets around that if you do this, do it well, you’ll get money and organisations not providing the data won’t be on recommended lists. In a way I’m looking to shame organisations.

Is a lot of money wasted?
Yes. I’m not saying there are a lot of charities where it’s doing no good at all, but if you are giving to a charity to save a life for $100,000 and there’s another charity that could save a life for $5,000, then I’d say you’ve wasted $95,000.

Not all lives are considered equal though. People generally see their family and people around them as more important than people in faraway countries.

Yes, if there’s anything universally true of every culture, people pay more attention to the needs and interests of their close kin.

I’m not trying to fight that. That would be hopeless. I’m just saying it doesn’t have to stop there, that people’s altruism isn’t only related to kin and reciprocity, that there’s an element of it for distant strangers. It shouldn’t just be a plateau and then falls off a cliff if you’re not related to me or are my friend.

Why should people care about distant strangers?
Because you can make a big difference to their lives at a small cost to yourself, you are making the world a better place.

Even if we assume that your welfare is going to drop a little bit, and the welfare of several other people rises a lot, you are living in a better world. I think we ought to think about that, it should be a motivating factor.

Assuming you are a comfortable middle-class person, you are spending a lot of money on things that don’t make a huge difference to your life. Whether you change your curtains or buy a new car or new clothes, those sort of things make a pretty small difference. Whereas making a big difference to someone can be so much more fulfilling, so much more worthwhile. Even from a broadly self-interested sense, you’re better off.

How would you class how public policy in Australia is going at the moment?
I think the cuts to foreign aid are deplorable. I say that in a non-partisan way because it was the second Rudd government that started it off, because there had been bipartisan support for moving to 0.5% of gross national income, then that Labor government said they’d postpone it. I think it’s shameful that Australia gives so little aid.

Look at Britain. David Cameron pledged to reach 0.7% and he did it, despite financial problems.

Maybe the political atmosphere has got more poisonous in Australia, maybe that gives people licence to attack others on matters that should be bipartisan, like foreign aid. I don’t know.

Does that debate, where we demonise the poorest, those fleeing persecution, impact upon peoples’ altruism?
The debate about asylum seekers is very unfortunate, but in a way there’s a loss of sense of proportion in how we are doing in accepting refugees and by that standard we are doing OK. That’s something we should be positive about.

Even after the aid cuts, we are giving more than the Americans, by proportion, so we aren’t doing badly, but I wouldn’t like to compare us with the Americans. They are very anti-government, more anti-government than us and more anti-government than anyone should be.

We should compare ourselves to reasonably affluent nations such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway and of course Britain. Australians, generally, think we are better off than Britain, so why can’t we give as much aid as them? We should do better.

What change would you like to see in an ideal world?
The ideal scenario is when people think “am I living ethically?” they aren’t thinking “have I stolen something, have I lied or cheated?” or whatever – usually you can tick those boxes and say no.

I’d like people to think more “have I done something significant to make the world a better place?” That could be through reducing animal suffering, reducing the risk of catastrophic disasters by acting on climate change or dealing with an epidemic.

Whatever you’re doing, you need to make sure it’s as effective as possible.

Share

Focus on Fraud” The Reynold’s Family “Wretched Charity Empire” gets FTC AX

Friday, May 29th, 2015

Yesterday, regulators came down like a unified load of bricks on a group of cancer charities—but why did it take so long?

The four cancer charities charged by the 50 states’ attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission as a sham are all related. They are run by members of the same family—James Reynolds, Sr.; James Reynolds, Jr.; James Junior’s wife, Kristina Hixson; her mother, two sisters, and other near Hixson relations; Senior’s ex-wife Rose Perkins; and others. Two of the four charities are being dissolved due to the FTC complaint, and members of the family face fines in the tens of millions, though the structure of the proposed final order lets the Reynolds family off with much lower personal payments.

According to the FTC, the charities spent 97 percent of what they raised on fundraising and on the Reynolds family themselves, devoting only three percent to help cancer patients. All told, according to the government complaint, the charities walked off with as much as $187 million that should have been spent on cancer issues. The groups were “operated as personal fiefdoms characterized by rampant nepotism, flagrant conflicts of interest, and excessive insider compensation.”

Here is what we don’t get. The Reynolds family has long been known to be operating these charities as virtual scams. NPQ wrote about the Reynolds clan back in 2013, drawing on reporting from the Center for Investigative Reporting and the Tampa Bay Times with data going back years before that. We know that it takes time to build cases, but the Reynolds family’s “wretched charity empire,” as we described it, has been a sore thumb among cancer charities for a very long time. It shouldn’t take until all 50 attorneys general plus the Federal Trade Commission come together to scrub the nonprofit sector of the likes of the Reynolds cancer charities.

One more thing we don’t get: As the Washington Post reported, health charities, or rather disease charities have become a big business. While it is unfair to slam all health charities as a result of the Reynolds cancer charity imbroglio, there is no question that more are out there delivering only tiny proportions of their charitable take as legitimate service. Nonprofits don’t like to call for governmental oversight and investigations, but there are nonprofits out there that know other charities that operate much like those of the Reynolds family. The damage caused by Reynolds-like scam charities hurts all charities. The damage is not avoided by nonprofit leaders’ adopting ostrich strategies. Given the distinctive purview of the FTC, it would seem logical that the majority of this responsibility on the governmental side ought to lie with the Internal Revenue Service, but its absence in the Reynolds story is telling. Nonprofits ought to be energized to excise the likes of the Reynolds charities and to nudge the IRS’s tax-exempt unit to function as it should.

And, actually, one more thing: It’s not just health charities. State attorneys general have been issuing report after report about the shady telemarketing and fundraising practices of charities that should be functioning much more reputably, particularly those that purport to be serving military veterans. There is no excuse for letting fundraising scams persist hiding behind 501(c)(3) charitable status. There are national nonprofit organizations that somehow even defended scammy telemarketers under the guise that they are providing valuable information to donors that should be protected as nonprofit free speech, even if they’re raising little money that actually goes to charitable services and functions. The Reynolds imbroglio ought to get nonprofits and the public to take a second, really hard look at the nonprofits and their telemarketer partners that seem to exist more for fundraising than for charitable service.

Too many people look at the nonprofit sector as a profit center for their businesses and for themselves personally. It’s time for the vast majority of legitimate, reputable, ethical nonprofits to join with government regulators at the state and federal levels to clean out the Reynolds clones

Share

The Miami Billionaire Behind Rubio, and his Braman Art Foundation

Wednesday, April 15th, 2015

Senator Marco Rubio seems and feels young to be running for president, especially since another, more senior member of his party hailing from Florida politics, former governor Jeb Bush, appears all destined to make a run himself. But Rubio is off to the races, regardless of the likely presence of another Floridian.

Like many politicians of both parties, Rubio’s enthusiastic supporters include some with philanthropic ties. One of his most enthusiastic and moneyed backers is billionaire car dealer Norman Braman. Sports fans know Braman as a former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles in the NFL, with fan memories including his “I own you” statement to holdout player Keith Jackson, his contention that he didn’t make any money off the Eagles when statistics showed it to be the NFL’s most profitable franchise, and as a Floridian taxpayer his opposition to public subsidies for the Miami Dolphins stadium—and yes, fans, he was the Eagles owner when the team parted with Hall of Fame defensive end Reggie White.

Forbes ranks the octogenarian Braman as the 351st-wealthiest person in the U.S., with a net worth of some $1.89 billion and fame for owning the largest private collection of Alexander Calder artworks apparently anywhere. With that kind of money in his coffers, Braman is also a philanthropist. The striking thing about his family foundation—the Braman Family 2011 Charitable Foundation—is that on the Foundation Directory’s profile of the foundation, the listed contact person is Jeanette Rubio, with an email address of “jdrubioconsulting.” The Washington Post reports that not only is Braman a financial backer of Senator Rubio’s presidential aspirations, but the Braman foundation has hired Rubio’s wife as a part-time employee to “help…the family determine how to donate millions of dollars to nonprofits and charities.” Rubio’s Senate financial disclosure statements identify him as the president of Rubio Consulting and the principal in Marco Rubio, P.A., where one of his clients was Braman Management.

If the Braman family is distributing many millions, it isn’t necessarily through the family foundation (or through the Irma and Norman Braman Art Foundation, which appears to be an operating foundation). The grants payouts of the foundation, according to the Form 990PFs, look as follows:

Calendar Year

Family Foundation End of Year Assets (book value)

Family Foundation Grants Payout

Largest Grant Recipients Listed on 990s

Additional Noteworthy Grants

2013

$8,435,177

$250

Breast Cancer Research Foundation ($250)

2012

$8,220,476

$563,750

American Friends of Jordan River Village ($180,000); MDC Foundation ($105,000); Jewish Community Services of South Florida ($50,000); Camillus House ($50,000)

The Jordan River Village is one of a network of free sleep-away camps for seriously ill children, founded a quarter-century ago by actor Paul Newman.

2011

$8,764,338

$1,242,857

Greater Miami Jewish Federation ($550,000); Temple Beth Shalom in Miami Beach ($250,000); the Cleveland Orchestra ($100,000); University of Miami ($67,857); American Friends of Israel Museum ($50,000)

Small grants for organizations serving persons with disabilities (American Friends of Beit Issie Shapiro, Best Buddies) and for troubled youth or youth with health needs (City Year, Kristi House, etc.).

Reports had Braman likely to commit as much as $10 million to pro-Rubio PACs in the event of the senator’s official candidacy.

The importance of Braman should not be underestimated. In the likelihood of several Republican gladiators for the presidential nomination, including Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, and others, Braman’s dollars could keep an otherwise outpolled Rubio in the race, much like Sheldon Adelson did for Newt Gingrich and Foster Friess did for Rick Santorum last time around. Like Adelson and Friess, Braman plays two positions—campaign financier and philanthropic donor. He won’t be the only one in the 2016 presidential primary scrum.—Rick Cohen

Share

Donna Shalala to head Clinton Foundation

Saturday, March 7th, 2015

The Clinton Foundation will get new leadership in the form of longtime Clinton ally and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala as it continues to face ongoing questions about its foreign fundraising practices, former President Bill Clinton announced in Coral Gables, Florida on Friday.

The news of Shalala’s new role comes as the foundation has caused all-but-certain 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton some political trouble in the final weeks before her expected campaign roll-out. Republicans have latched onto reports that the foundation resumed accepting money from foreign governments after Clinton left the State Department in 2013 — a policy which the organization said it would review if Clinton pursues the White House — and to her use of a personal email address as Secretary of State.

Story Continued Below

And the foundation has also come under scrutiny with the swift departure of CEO Eric Braverman, a close ally of Chelsea Clinton.

Additionally, it was discovered that the foundation had accepted donations from companies that were simultaneously lobbying the U.S. government while Clinton was working as secretary of state.

Braverman left in January after clashing with members of former President Bill Clinton’s circle. Hillary Clinton confidante Maura Pally has been serving as CEO in an interim capacity since Braverman’s departure.

Shalala, 74, announced in September that she would resign from her position as president of the University of Miami at the end of the school year after 14 years leading the university. She reportedly will move to New York to lead the nonprofit, which is officially named the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Shalala served as HHS secretary for all eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and she joins the Clintons in Miami over the weekend as her school hosts a foundation event. By leaving the foundation in her hands as Hillary Clinton prepares to run for president, the family hands off their $2 billion global philanthropic enterprise to a long-standing friend with fundraising experience of her own.

The former cabinet secretary has raised nearly $3 billion during her tenure in Miami, garnering a reputation as a skilled financial operator. The foundation will likely need such leadership over at least the next two years, as Clinton will not be able to directly raise money for it while tapping donors to fund her own presidential ambitions.

She joined her husband and daughter at the helm of the organization after leaving the State Department in 2013, and headlined on Wednesday what is likely to be the foundation’s last major fundraising event before her campaign.

In choosing Shalala, the Clintons tapped an official with significant management experience — she also served in top roles at Hunter College and the University of Wisconsin-Madison — and a reputation for not being a rubber-stamp after opposing Bill Clinton’s welfare law when he was president.

But she has also been helpful for Hillary Clinton, hosting her at a friendly appearance in Coral Gables in February 2014 as Clinton was gaining momentum as a presidential hopeful.?

Hillary Clinton and Shalala, who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008 by President George W. Bush, served on the board of the Children’s Defense Fund for years together.

Correction: This story has been updated to correct the spelling of Pally’s name.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/donna-shalala-clinton-foundation-115838.html#ixzz3TiplPAxT

Share

The Clinton Foundation and The Third Way

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014

In beginning to look at the CGI….Gonna start by looking at their own media. So below a film….in which the basic philosophy of what the CGI (The Clinton Global Inititive) does,  is described. And the most key element of the entire thing….is “We dont’ believe in the artificial boundaries between governments, nonprofits, and businesses…” This is the famed Troika that can and will and is redefining public spending. This….is the 3rd Way…personified with pretty much exponentially more power and grace (and most importantly: effectiveness) than anywhere before it. And… looking at Transparency…. inspiring it….getting really into it…taking it way beyond the pie graph….across these Three Areas of Public Spending……again….you’re looking at a whole new world.

The primary thing the CGI does is put people together …but it puts people together ACROSS THESE THREE SPHERES. There will be a day that an agency like the MTA will not be able to bottle up public transportation spending….that day will come because of the understanding and promotion of the TROIKA that The Third Way epouses, and the CGI works actively across, every moment of every day. Businesses, NGOs, and Governments. And an individual…can rally the support of all three to get something done. That’s an amazing new development in Public Spending…and it’s held up as an example almost singuarly…by the Clinton Global Initiative. And if this philosophy were to become the dominant model of Public Spending around the world…ur looking at a progressive revolution finally beyond that made by FDR beginning in 1933.

Share

THE CLINTON FOUNDATION: HOW DOES IT WORK?

Friday, September 12th, 2014

In less than two weeks, the Clinton Global Initiative‘s 10th Annual Meeting will convene leaders from around the world to turn ideas into action on global challenges. The meeting will open on Sunday, September 21st with the Clinton Global Citizen Awards, which honor outstanding individuals in civil society, philanthropy, public service, and the private sector who exemplify global citizenship through their vision, leadership, and impact in addressing global challenges.


We are pleased to announce that this year’s awards will be hosted by Seth Meyers, of NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers” and will feature musical performances by Aloe Blacc, Natalie Merchant, Jason Mraz with special guests Raining Jane, and The Roots and appearances by Madeleine Albright, Eva Longoria, and Randy Jackson, who serves as music director for the even

As Chelsea Clinton told The Hollywood Reporter: “My family is grateful that some of the most talented, caring and engaged artists in entertainment will help us shine a light on this year’s Clinton Global Citizen Award honorees and their extraordinary commitments and work to strengthen communities around the world.”

The evening’s honorees include Leonardo DiCaprio, Founder, Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation; Atifete Jahjaga, President of the Republic of Kosovo; Hayat Sindi, Founder and CEO, i2 Institute; and Greg Asbed and Lucas Benitez, Co-founders, Coalition of Immokalee Workers.
As the event approaches, follow #CGI2014 on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook for other announcements, live highlights from the awards, and ways to watch the ceremony.
– See more at: http://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2014/09/10/see-whos-performing-and-being-honored-2014-clinton-global-citizen-awards#sthash.TNCj2p2I.dpuf

As Chelsea Clinton told The Hollywood Reporter: “My family is grateful that some of the most talented, caring and engaged artists in entertainment will help us shine a light on this year’s Clinton Global Citizen Award honorees and their extraordinary commitments and work to strengthen communities around the world.”
The evening’s honorees include Leonardo DiCaprio, Founder, Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation; Atifete Jahjaga, President of the Republic of Kosovo; Hayat Sindi, Founder and CEO, i2 Institute; and Greg Asbed and Lucas Benitez, Co-founders, Coalition of Immokalee Workers.
As the event approaches, follow #CGI2014 on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook for other announcements, live highlights from the awards, and ways to watch the ceremony.
– See more at: http://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2014/09/10/see-whos-performing-and-being-honored-2014-clinton-global-citizen-awards#sthash.TNCj2p2I.dpuf

Share

Today The Senate Vote’s On Repealing Citizens United

Monday, September 8th, 2014

When we helped start the movement for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling four and a half years ago, many said it couldn’t be done.

They said the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were too strong.

But you moved into action. And now — thousands upon thousands of petitions, emails, calls and rallies later — your work has brought us to a historic moment in the effort to restore democracy to elections.

Today, the United States Senate will bring the constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United to the Senate floor, with a vote possible as early as today!

Call your senators RIGHT NOW to make sure they vote for democracy, not plutocracy.

1. Call your senators right now at this toll-free number: 866-937-7983.

2. Say this to the staffer who answers the phone: “I’m calling in support of S.J. Res. 19, the Democracy for All constitutional amendment.”

3. That’s it — you won’t have to get into a debate.

The billionaires and Big Business have used their money to influence YOUR senators.

But YOU have the power to make sure your senators stand with the American people in this historic moment.

Call your senators TODAY at 866-937-7983.

Thank you for taking action and moving our nation toward a day where every American is represented in the halls of power.

In solidarity,

Robb Friedlander
Public Citizen’s Democracy Is for People Campaign

Share