This is shaping up for another bad week for Hillary Clinton with stories on another undisclosed and unofficial email account that was used during tenure as Secretary of State as well as a New York Times story on the role of Sidney Blumenthal in seeking business with the State Department while continuing as an unofficial and controversial adviser to Clinton. However, the story that I found most interesting is a report that unions have been pouring significant money into the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation has been accused of being a conduit for donors and foreign governments to give money to the Clinton, who have used the Foundation to hire loyalists (like Blumenthal) and pay for luxury travel for the Clinton family. While some have denounced the Clinton Foundation a “slush fund,” the New York Times has offered a more tempered criticism of the Foundation for its business dealings and advancement of Clinton’s political interests. Yet, Clinton supporters insist that the Foundation has done important work around the world. The use of union funds to support the Foundation would in my view be the most serious of the past disclosures, though it has received less attention than the huge sums paid by corporate and foreign figures trying to influence Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
The report appears to have been generated by a union watchdog group, the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR). I am unfamiliar with the group and it is likely viewed by the unions as a conservative political organization. However, the group has made specific and documented allegations that should be addressed. If it is falsifying information, both individuals and unions may be able to sue. However, at the moment, the allegations have not been refuted from what I can see.
The group says that
“U.S. Department of Labor’s union financial disclosure reports reveal that Big Labor gave at least $2,034,500 in union general treasury funds to Clinton Foundations. Union treasuries are funded mostly by compulsory union dues or fees collected from workers who would be fired for refusing to pay. . . As Mrs. Clinton became closer to her current run for president, donations amounts appear to have increased.”
Here is the most disturbing allegation: “Some of these ‘donations’ are categorized by the unions as ‘political’ on their financial disclosure report. One such union, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices, a national plumbers union, is listed as giving nearly $200,000 through two contributions in 2013; each of those donations was classified as a political activity. Such a designation would seem to confirm the view of many that giving to the Clinton Foundation was viewed as a circumvention of federal laws in supporting the Clintons and particularly Hillary Clinton.
I was surprised to see little mainstream coverage of this allegation. It is not enough to dismiss a source when that source is quoting from actual federal filings. There should be some response. I find it highly troubling to think of union dues being given to such a Foundation. I have also become increasingly concerned over the use of the Foundation to hire Clinton stalwarts who seem to have moved freely between the State Department (as with Blumenthal) or the campaign staff like a shadow campaign structure. The view of foreign government or unions that the Foundation was a facade for the Clintons themselves was obvious.
What disturbs me is that I could not find a single rebuttal to the story. Perhaps some of our readers can find a response and share it with us. I may also be missing something as to why this is not a major story. Union funds are largely dues generated and should be used to advance the interests of the union. As the grandson of a coal miner and one of the early UMW organizers in Ohio, I have always been highly sympathetic to unions and their need to organize. However, using such funds to support the Clinton Foundation strikes me as problematic. Perhaps there was a union initiative at the Foundation that I am not aware of that would justify over $2 million in contributions.
Has anyone seen a response to this allegation? I would really like the read the opposing view.
Annie
Not voting for Clinton is a vote for something far worse. It is, unfortunately, the lesser of the evils. This is the flip side of the ‘greatest democracy on earth’ coin, two parties-dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t. When the US gets off of its ‘War Footing’ it might evolve towards a Parliamentary system where the President is merely the leader of the party in power, and hopefully this way there will be more parties and a true democracy. As it is, the US system of government is a combination of elected royalty and oligarchs.
issac – you automatically think not voting for Hillary is voting for someone worse? Wow!!!! The bar is so low.
old nurse,
In the immortal words of W. Edwards Deming, “How could you know?”
Paul
Bengazi again-horseapples
but is there one standard by which the voter can measure them to know when they have been corrupted?
I once heard a local politician say that a politician is corrupted by the time they are running their first re-election campaign. Sounds right to me.
Paul – that is so funny, but true! Hey, all those emails to her donors were probably just about Yoga or Bill, right?
Hillary Clinton is the Teflon Queen. She can lie, break the law, and pretty much do anything she pleases with zero consequences. She is a prime example of how politicians are above the law and unaccountable.
That comes as no surprise.
I personally would like to see a President Bernie Sanders.
Hillary Clinton is also vague about how much of her Clinton Foundation charity actually goes towards charity. Charity Navigator is unable to rate them, because instead of donating money to grants and funding other projects, they claim that they do all of their own good works in house. Most of the foundation money goes towards travel, salaries, and some vague catch-all called “other expenses.”
What is so very like Clinton is that she just says that all this goes for good works done in-house. Since Charity Navigator is unable to rate them because of this unique business model, all we have to go on is her word. With her well documented history of lying, her declaration is not enough for me.
I don’t know why the Unions donating atrocious sums of money to Clinton would be shocking. They’ve openly bought most Democratic politicians. They even got special waivers for Obamacare. What should be illegal is forcing their members to donate money to political campaigns with which they disagree. They do not have a choice on whether to donate to politicians of the Union’s choosing. In order to work in many jobs, they must belong to a union, and so they must fund the Union’s politicians. This counteracts their own personal political beliefs, yet another aspect that sounds like the Mob to me.
It is a self-evident truth that politicians are corruptible but is there one standard by which the voter can measure them to know when they have been corrupted?
China connection:
One donor – Rilin Enterprises- pledged $2 million in 2013 to the Clinton Foundation’s endowment. The company is a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate
and run by billionaire Wang Wenliang, who is also a delegate to the Chinese parliament. Public records show the firm has spent $1.4 million since 2012,
lobbying Congress and the State Department. The firm owns a strategic port along the border with North Korea and was also one of the contractors that built the Chinese embassy in Washington.
Russia connection:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.
The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family.
Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Jerry – since they have not announced all the donors (they are currently wiping the computer disks) we will have to wait to see who all is involved.
I don’t think the problems is unions or corporations, per se. It’s that we have an election process that is completely corrupted by both. Why not have a 4-6 week publicly funded primary season? Surely, that is enough time for candidates to debate each other a few times and state their positions. Do we really need to hear them regurgitate their same nonsense 50000 times?? NO, we don’t! It would be enough to hear them tell us the same nonsense just a few times.
And then have a 4-6 week period for the general election, publicly funded, a couple debates each on domestic and foreign policy. And then we vote. And we get the corrupting money out of it – no matter what the source. And we don’t have to listen to these buffoons of both parties bloviating endlessly about nothing.
It would probably cost each citizen about $10 every four years.
Here’s my prediction. Hillary has too many negatives to function as the best front for the oligarchy. (Justice Holmes, I agree with many of your points, but the top union leadership is completely corrupt. It is a part of the oligarchy and couldn’t care less about ordinary members lives. It is also true that unions do not give nearly what corporations give. Still, top leaderships of both work together quite well).
The person the oligarchy would like to see in office is Saint Elizabeth Warren. She has the ability to fool people in exactly the way Obama does. Clinton gets the votes of people who are stupid enough to believe that any woman will do for the job of president, but that isn’t enough people to be blindly obedient to her in the way Obama supporters are towards him.
I think we’ll be seeing a lot of leaks about Clinton. Eventually, it will be President Warren. I truly wish people would not fall for Obama 2.0, version Female, but it will happen.
By the way; Step 2 is “Hope. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.”
Contrary to popular opinion, that Power is not supposed to be sitting in the White House.
If we look at this from a free-market capitalism point of view then aren’t people simply spending money where they see value for themselves? Unfortunately, what the candidates are selling in no way resembles what their oath of office requires. Nothing will change until the people demand a different product.
One more point; anyone that believes this is a political party problem is too invested in one particular party to be objective. Both major political parties are competing for the power to continue to grow their respective cartel. We could solve this but it would require an intervention. The electorate needs to begin with Step 1 of a 12 Step program and I don’t see that happening peacefully. If you find yourself loathing any movement attempting to restore this nation to a limited, constitutional government then you are under the influence of the cartel’s product and useless to reasonable debate.
I am shocked -SHOCKED- to find corruption in the Clinton camp.
Pogo – I am with you. There is not a hint of scandal in their background. Nothing that would allow us to think there would be corruption. They have been so truthful and squeaky clean as a couple.
Hillary’s problems are getting worse. They found new emails showing they knew of an intented Benghazi attack 10 days in advance.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/05/new-docs-reveal-administration-knew-about-benghazi-10-days-before-attack/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29
Here’s a compilation of “Top Organization Contributors” from opensecrets.org. Excluding the donors who are interested in corrupting both parties and split their donations in a range of between 60-40 and 40-60, union donations to campaigns, PACs, and Super PACs dominate. It is not even close.
Of the top 25 (outside the 60-40/40-60 range), only four of the “Top Organization Contributors” listed on this table give primarily to Republicans. And one of them, the guy who owned Perry Homes, died in the past couple of years.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Justice Holmes
1, May 19, 2015 at 9:59 am
Unions don’t have far more money than corporations and the billionaires who love them. As a result, they cannot give more money!
No doubt you find this compelling, but in reality having money does not in fact require you to donate it and is therefore not proof that you have done so.
Review this:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=ALL
I’ll just run down the list of largest contributors since 2002:
1. Union.
2. Leftist PAC.
3. Union
4. Union
5. Tom Steyer’s PAC
6. Union.
7. Gambling (the first organization with less than 96% of donations to Dems)
8. Nat Assoc of Realtors (49-52 split)
9. Union
10. Union
11. Union
12. AT&T (1st “Corporation”, split 42-58)
13. Union
So those who claim money from “corporations” is swamping that from unions are just ignorant of reality.
Duh!
“Unions don’t have far more money than corporations and the billionaires who love them”
Unions forcibly TAKE their money from small time working people and give the money to Democrat politicians despite the wishes of the union workers. All support goes to Democrats despite the fact that some of the unions workers object to those policies. Doesn’t matter. You are forced to pay and you get no say. Union dues are a big honey pot for the union big wigs and officials as well who live large on those dues. Owning golf courses, hotels, resorts that none or few of the rank and file can ever hope to enjoy….even though they pay for it.
Losing their captive pool of workers that they can skim money from and losing the ability to FORCE people to belong to a Union in order to work is the main reason for all of the Union animus towards politicians like Scott Walker and against “right to work” states.
Money donated to the Clintons or to their ‘supposed’ charitable foundation are not a benefit to the rank and file workers. If they wanted to donate to them, the members could set up a separate side fund. They don’t and they won’t.