Clinton Foundation: Three Decades of ‘Winning’ Have Cost Us Incalculably
Doug Band spewed!
Three weeks of Wikileaks’ Podesta emails have confirmed that everything I wrote in 12 prior articles on the Clinton Foundation based in analyzing the organization’s tax filings (in some cases — several, which were revised for 3 tax years 2011–2013), public records (website and blog posts), audited financial statements, and doing simple due diligence, such as calling phone numbers listed in reports that rang to random, non-Foundation numbers, is true.
The Clinton Foundation has minimal outcomes that can be described as “charitable.” (How many times have I typed this? Lord help me, too many). There are many reasons to question their operations. Every tab of the organization’s website contains one or more red flags for legitimate nonprofit or NGO professionals. These elements include gross deviations in claimed outcomes (40,000 farmers “catalyzed,” one month later it’s over 100,000), and separate organizations comprising the majority of publically-stated outcomes (The Alliance for a Healthier Generation outcomes are main US-based claims for “healthier children”; Clinton Health Access Initiative AIDS drug negotiations and pass-through funds main claim for the Foundation’s international results).
Clinton spokespeople, media surrogates, and Mr. and Mrs. Clinton’s own constant touting of charity “watchdog” ratings rather than actual performance or outcomes are obvious ‘tells’ of poor performance.
Almost 100% of traditional, legacy media reports have focused on the Foundation’s acquisition of large sums of cash from donors many find sketchy, like Middle Eastern governments and businesses or individuals that don’t show up on any other charitable giving lists. These donors do have business interests in Haiti, Malawi, Tanzania, Rwanda, Colombia, Peru or other countries where the Clinton Foundation states it “does work.” There’s a much-watched movie called “Clinton Cash” that documents the trail of cash and later “business opportunities” or government appointments/relationships following donations to the Foundation.
I have seen only a handful of media reports that state the obvious: there’s little overlap between Clinton Foundation donors and those to other international aid organizations. Even fewer reports have focused on the work that Clinton Foundation accomplishes. Those which have, have been ignored by almost all media that reaches America’s more than 318 million residents.
Documented Reports of Foundation Non-Performance
Dady Chery has meticulously documented the complete lack of performance of the Clinton Foundation in Haiti.
Bill Clinton was in charge of Haiti recovery after the 2010 earthquake. It wasn’t just Clinton Foundation money, but also the massive Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund, U.S. government dollars and international aid dollars which were squandered — not just to no effect, but to actual negative effect and detriment of Haitians. The total is estimated to be anywhere between $10 billion and $50 billion given for Haiti recovery. Less than 1 penny of each dollar of those funds, whether charitable or government-provided, went to anything remotely beneficial for Haitians. VICE’s HBO show Haiti Money Pit documented this in 2015.
In other areas, I had noticed that Clinton Foundation prominently displayed a job-training program in Cartagena alleging that 20,000 Colombians would be trained for jobs in “new industries.” Blog posts written by the Foundation’s unpaid interns said the center would train 3,000 to 5,000 Colombians. By calling the center in Cartagena and attempting to use its outdated (2015) job boards, as well as reading local news articles, I determined that the center was run by Colombia’s largest for-profit employment agency and was sourcing a few hundred employees for local hotels and tourist businesses. Fusion sent reporters to Colombia which confirmed this and many additional economically exploitive activities conducted by Bill Clinton, Frank Giustra, and to a lesser extent, Mexican telecommunications ultrabillionaire Carlos Slim and his son Marco in that country.
Problems: What Are Good Things About Clinton Foundation?
In the ultimate sense, a charitable organization’s performance can be measured by outcomes. Programs that provide education or training are more difficult to assess in terms of measurable outcome; much more clear are the results of a building project or concrete program providing medical treatment, food or water access.
Looking at all of this information, I thought, “at least Clinton Foundation has the Presidential Library in Little Rock. That is a real building, with availability to the public, exhibits and records.” This is true, and it’s the Foundation’s original exempt purpose.
Now Wikileaks has revealed that the building’s existence is pretty much due to the fundraising of Doug Band and Justin Cooper. Doug Band, the “body man” to Bill Clinton for many years, makes clear in his 2011 memo regarding the division of for-profit or money-making activities of former President Clinton, that he and Justin Cooper, a man heretofore identified in media as a “Clinton IT employee” were the primary fundraisers for the Library and the Foundation’s “operating costs.”
I have no doubt that the traditional “media” take is that Doug and Justin are the bad guys. It’s obvious they were pushed out of Foundation involvement in 2011 as questions arose about many aspects of Hillary Clinton’s work as Secretary of State, Clinton Foundation activities and Bill Clinton’s role with the Foundation, international diplomacy, and other conflicts of interest. Doug’s memo results from a 2011 internal review of the Foundation by Simpson, Thacher & Associates. Some Foundation critics see this review as a terrible thing; it’s actually a good thing, and one of the only steps toward better performance and professionalism I find in their records and information. It was also a very “friendly” and mild review as such things go.
Most of us who have lived in the real world, not that of the Clintons, have experienced much harsher organizational review processes and formal evaluations, especially when change processes have been considered.
One of the most remarkable things about the entire Clinton Foundation situation is how grossly unprofessional many senior Foundation staff and its policies and procedures were and still are. There is a memo from Maura Pally who was called in after Eric Braverman stepped down as CEO in early 2015 that is breathtaking in its defensiveness, unprofessionalism and lack of organizational focus. Memos from CHAI CEO Ira Magaziner also appear unprofessional, but they also raise valid concerns about his organization — which at least does some type of work that benefits some people.
So, media pundits are certain to criticize and attack Doug Band, Justin Cooper, and Declan Kelly at Teneo. The reality is he and Cooper appear to be responsible, decent and faithful employees (as for the most part, does Podesta, judging from the emails) working for two people who seem breathtakingly self-centered, ambitious and greedy. At least judging by people I’ve experienced, known of or read about in history books. I’m sure there are many worse out there. I just don’t know about them or of them.
The Devil is in the Details
Let’s say your job is to respond to your boss’ wishes. It’s to keep him comfortable, happy and do what he he says day to day and keep his interests at heart over the long term. This footnote to Doug Band’s detailed memo about Teneo Consulting and its relationship to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton makes this very clear.
Doug Band has done an exemplary job.
The last time I checked, seeing to the personal, day to day needs and interests of any former President, including birthdays and heart surgery recovery,
was not a charitable, tax-exempt purpose.
Get in, Do the Damage, Get Out
So, as ongoing readers know, my “favorite” two Clinton Global Initiative “Commitment to Action” agreements are the one with McDonalds and the other one with the Beverage Industry Association that guarantees a long-term lock-in for either Coke, Pepsi or Dr. Pepper Snapple school vending agreements.
Doug Band appears to be the one who set that up.
From a fundraising perspective, if all you’re considering is cash in, this is fantastic.
From a legal charitable or nonprofit perspective, here are just a few of the things that are wrong:
Band’s memo makes it clear Coke’s gifts were for Clinton Foundation “operating fund”
The only vaguely charitable thing Coca Cola agreed with its other “Beverage Industry Partners” was to voluntarily reduce calories consumed nationally by 20% by 2025 (a 15-year period).
The agreement was through CGI, the main entity Band, Cooper & Kelly interacted with.
There are at least 4 voluntary “agreements” with Coke through CGI — they are all business, not charitably oriented.
The Alliance for A Healthier Generation is a separate non-profit organization, located in Portland Oregon.
Clinton Foundation used Coke’s money to give $2 million to the Alliance annually, and that is all the Foundation gave; some years it is less than $2 million.
Doug Band is an attorney. Almost everyone involved with the Clinton Foundation is an attorney. Cheryl Mills and John Podesta are attorneys. Since all spend their time responding to crises in the moment (blatantly obvious from even a cursory review of Wikileaks’ Podesta emails), none considered the patchwork organizational structure and complete lack of vision or mission of the Clinton Foundation that fits U.S. charitable statute, law and intent.
Not only is there only one shared board member with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, the financial connection is limited (11% of the Alliance 2014 funding, less in other years). The only real connection appears to be photos and publicity materials; the Alliance staff appear to be the ones who execute, negotiate, sign and track CGI agreements which are in and of themselves, questionable and problematic as to charitable benefit or purpose. And the entire arrangement, based on Band’s memo, appears to be pursuant to a verbal agreement with the American Heart Association which never claimed any outcomes related to the Alliance for a Healthier Generation as an American Heart Association program or outcome.
I am not an attorney but if I were called in to do the job Eric Braverman had been asked to do in 2012, I would have had no idea where to start.
Looking for those dueling memos from Pally and Magaziner about CHAI, the separate AIDS organization, I accidentally saw that Doug Band does “get” the problems involved and he outlined them succinctly in a 2011 email to Cheryl Mills (attorney).
There Comes a Time …
Even though Doug Band appears to be responsible and diligent in his duties of providing financial support for former President Clinton and his needs, there comes a time where this has to be questioned as well. It might have seemed good in the short term to ally with Dow Chemical; in the long term, it’s doubtful that helping that company escape responsibility for environmental devastation was the best plan, even for Bill Clinton’s bottom line.
Chuck Ross, a reporter for The Daily Caller, covered information regarding Hillary Clinton’s interactions with Dow Chemical while Secretary of State earlier this month. She intervened on behalf of the company with India’s prime minister. Dow Chemical continues to face consequences as a result of the world-famous Bhopal chemical spill in 1984 which cost 8,000 lives and untold later environmental damage to India.
There are a few discrepancies between Ross’ report of the funds changing hands between Dow Chemical, the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton and Doug Band’s Teneo as a consultant.
These fees alone exceed anything Dow stated it was spending for any type of benefit for people or environment in India; they far exceed any funds spent in Haiti for earthquake aftermath or rebuilding by any Clinton-related entity.
Some people view these situations as “isolated instances” or they say it is merely right-wing criticism of the Clintons. I’m no right winger. I am registered Green Party and supporting Jill Stein.
The only tangible evidence of any type of public benefit I can find associated with the Clinton Foundation that wasn’t paid for or done by another organization (the CGI base concept) is the library in Little Rock. Other than that: there’s just nothing. A birthday party for Bill Clinton, nice as it may be for him, isn’t a charitable activity. Nor are paying for expenses related to his heart surgery, or an office for his daughter to conduct her own private business.
So, it’s back to basics:
Outside of the Library, all activities of the Foundation, particularly CGI and the various international “deals” in Colombia, Haiti, India, Peru and elsewhere, as well as the “healthier kids work” and the prescription drug arrangements conducted through CHAI, are not only non-charitable, they have served the opposite purpose for the United States, its government and its citizens. They serve to depress or retard commercial and economic growth and normal economic competition under fair circumstances. Having a former President “negotiate” deals for a non-US company such as India’s Ranbaxy (fined $500 million by US FDA in landmark case) or Canadian Frank Giustra’s mining interests, or Nestle or Carlos Slim in Peru and Colombia, does not help U.S. companies or employees.
Allowing fast food manufacturers like McDonalds and soft drink purveyors like Coke and Pepsi to stretch out any improvements over decades and get free advertisement, our tax dollars go to more problems with childhood obesity and related diseases like diabetes and heart disease, not fewer. The companies themselves are complacent and believe they are “doing enough” and respond less to consumer demand for healthier foods.
By negotiating lower generic AIDS drug prices for drugs made by 5 non-US manufacturers in 70 different countries, primarily emerging economies in Africa and Asia, an unknown number of individuals received medications that would otherwise not have received them — true. But the countries are locked in to buying only these medications for periods of 5 years or longer; US pharmaceutical companies are locked out of those countries. And as an email directly from CHAI CEO Ira Magaziner stated, similar deals could not be executed in the U.S. to lower AIDS medication prices here or the guaranteed deals forced in other countries would be lost.
A thousand people just died in Haiti, six years after the 2010 earthquake. Our tax dollars are certain to be spent to “remedy” a problem for which billions have already been given. In addition to the exhaustively documented exploitation of that country and its people and the gross lack of performance of the Clinton Foundation, Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund, and USAID and their subcontractors [outside the scope of these articles] — Doug Band mentioned a “Haiti Hope Juice”
Well, like pretty much everything else I looked into, this amounted to nothing for Haiti but a whole lot of advertisement for Coca Cola on behalf of its Odwalla juice subsidiary.
I said to Utrice Leid, an amazing radio host who has been covering the Clinton Foundation extensively, “I don’t understand why people don’t get that when these countries who have been so exploited, like Haiti, Peru and India, get the ability, they will come to take back what has been taken from them.”
The only thing that would prevent that would be their humanity; certainly not ours, unless we stop this now and make amends.
Charity Experts
This has been going on so long I can’t even find it, but early in the controversy (this year — one can find articles in major publications questioning the Clinton Foundation dating to 2005–6) a charity expert compared the Foundation to those established by Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller. By this, I’m sure she meant “Those guys were rapacious capitalists; then they set up foundations from their ill-gotten gains to ‘do good’.”
Gains gotten ill or well, both Carnegie and Rockefeller had businesses that produced something tangible and measurable. Carnegie gave an estimated 90% of his wealth from Carnegie Steel (we use steel — it’s an alloy used in construction and industry) away to charitable purposes ranging from Carnegie Hall to universities (Carnegie-Mellon), science schools, libraries, and more. Rockefeller was of course, Standard Oil, and is regarded as the richest single human being in modern history. His record is cloudier than that of Andrew Carnegie in terms of charitable and business ethos, and the fossil fuel oil is a natural resource not a human product. Yet he founded the University of Chicago, a university in the Philippines, and his massive personal foundation that operates on every continent with actual employees, programs and outcomes, largely in the areas of education, health and infrastructure improvement.
The Clinton Foundation is the exact opposite of both Foundations established by these 19th Century titans. They have not used profits the Clintons earned from making something or providing an essential good or service for the public good.
Winning and Business
How could this get so bad? Recent research shows that those who “win” are psychologically predisposed to cheat in the future to keep on “winning.”
Every business known to man that operates by making products or selling resources knows that at the end of the line, something must be delivered. Even utilities know that power has to go through the transmission lines; even cable companies know that they might be able to gouge to an extreme — but now they’re facing streaming services and dozens of competitors. When leaders cheat, companies do go out of business.
Arthur Andersen, the accounting company responsible for the Enron scandal, is still in business as Ireland-based consulting firm Accenture.
That might be what is in store for the U.S. Someone, somewhere else, will own all of us; frankly — that may already be true. I’ve never seen anything like what I have seen in the past few months learning about the Clinton Foundation.
Only we the people together can figure this out. And if we fail, the world will figure it out for us.
Amy Sterling Casil is the author of 30 nonfiction books, 3 novels, 3 short fiction & poetry collections, hundreds of articles, and also is a former high-level nonprofit fundraiser and executive, and a business planner and developer, primarily for women and non-traditional owners. You can buy her most recent book (sci fi short stories all about women) via Amazon or the largest, oldest author publishing cooperative, of which she is a co-founder.
