|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| The former president of the United States agreed to accept a lifetime achievement award at the June 2014 event after Ms. Nemcova offered a $500,000 contribution to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia..... "This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate,” said Doug White, who directs the master’s program in fund-raising management at Columbia University. “The model has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it — what would be the word? — distasteful.” ...... Further, it is extremely rare for honorees, or their foundations, to be paid from a gala’s proceeds, charity experts said — as it is for the proceeds to be diverted to a different cause...... In the charity gala world, it is considered unacceptable to spend more than a third of gross proceeds on costs, and better to spend considerably less. If the donation to the Clinton Foundation were counted as a cost, Happy Hearts would have spent 34 percent of its announced $2.5 million in proceeds on its gala. |
Doesn't equate to:
"Bill Clinton shook down a charity for a half-million dollars"
At all.
Doesn't equate to:
"Bill Clinton shook down a charity for a half-million dollars"
At all.
Hey, maybe if you read the article? I know, I know, since there's no Bigfoot or UFO angle, you're bored, but give it a shot, K?
I'm really not seeing the relevance.
Mr. Clinton’s scheduler replied with a cordial rejection — “Regrettably, he is committed to another event out of town that same evening” — in an email copied to Frank Giustra, the Canadian mining financier who is one of the Clinton Foundation’s largest donors and also a supporter of Ms. Nemcova.
Ms. Nemcova subsequently met with officers at the Clinton Foundation, Ms. Veres Royal said. Afterward, she said, “Petra called me and said we have to include an honorarium for him — that they don’t look at these things unless money is offered, and it has to be $500,000.”
The invitation letter was revised and sent again at the end of August. It moved the gala to 2014, offered to work around Mr. Clinton’s availability, dropped the focus on Indonesia and shifted it to Haiti, and proposed the donation.
It wasn't.
Pound sand, cunt head.
Doesn't equate to:
"Bill Clinton shook down a charity for a half-million dollars"
At all.
Pretty much this. You could certainly argue that Clinton shouldn't have accepted, much less asked for, a fee for showing up at a charity event.
But you could also argue that the charity should not have offered the money, or told him to go screw when he asked for it.
Or even you could argue that getting Clinton to show up, even for that price, was a reasonable gamble to increase donations to the charity for the event. For all anyone knows, it actually worked out in their favor.
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
Yeah, about that....
Guess he sucks at fundraising, huh?
This is true
Quote:
Their lifetime achievement award?
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
Yeah, about that....
Quote:
When charities select an honoree for their fund-raising events, they generally expect that the award recipient will help them raise money by attracting new donors. But the Happy Hearts Fund raised less money at the gala featuring Mr. Clinton than it did at its previous one.
Guess he sucks at fundraising, huh?
How does that prove he did not raise 1.5 M for them? What does the last one, or the next one have to do with the fact that they netted 2M, which 1/4 went to Clinton's charity ( so all the money went to charities, lets not forget that)?
Where was the shake down with this by the way?
Shakedown: the act of taking something (such as money) from someone by using threats or deception
Now return to your arguing with one another.
It's that the NYT is reporting on it.
My dad has been given awards more times than I can remember and it frequently has been a scenario where they need to know how many tables you can fill and how many people you can get for them. Not that that is a great thing either!
Exactly, this sounds like a win for both charities
What a shake down!
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
No, the charity raised less at that event than at prior events.
Because Bill Clinton is a huge draw.
Quote:
Their lifetime achievement award?
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
No, the charity raised less at that event than at prior events.
So how does that change the fact that he raised 1.5M for them? Holy shit, WTF does it have to do with any other event they have had? He generated 1.5M for them in this one, right or wrong?
They made 1.5M in one night. Is that considered a loss?
Quote:
In comment 12306596 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Their lifetime achievement award?
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
No, the charity raised less at that event than at prior events.
So how does that change the fact that he raised 1.5M for them? Holy shit, WTF does it have to do with any other event they have had? He generated 1.5M for them in this one, right or wrong?
It shows that the charity was more than capable of raising that amount of cash on their own and calls into question whether or not they would've been better off without inviting him. When you bring in someone like Clinton, you typically expect to see a significant increase in the amount raised.
And it's highly unlikely this gala wouldn't have raised at least half the $2M on their own, so you have to have your head pretty far up the Clinton's asses to attribute all $1.5M to them.
Quote:
And the reasoning has to be better than "they were graced with the awesome presence of Bill Clinton"
They made 1.5M in one night. Is that considered a loss?
If the total proceeds from the event sans Clinton would've exceeded $1.5M, than yes, it's a loss. And considering they had prior events surpass that mark, it's reasonable to think they could've raised a comparable amount for the Happy Hearts charity without Bill.
Quote:
In comment 12306654 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
And the reasoning has to be better than "they were graced with the awesome presence of Bill Clinton"
They made 1.5M in one night. Is that considered a loss?
If the total proceeds from the event sans Clinton would've exceeded $1.5M, than yes, it's a loss. And considering they had prior events surpass that mark, it's reasonable to think they could've raised a comparable amount for the Happy Hearts charity without Bill.
Did they charge the same ticket prices for their event with BC as they've done for previous events without him?
Perhaps they did, but my point is that there are more financial factors in play besides Clinton's ability to raise money or the amount of money he was paid to show up.
If you got a beef, its much easier to go after Hillary