Talk:Clinton Foundation

"controversies" should be more visable

I saw the page, expected a controversies section in the contents (as many wiki pages about NGOs do) but didn't find one, turned out it was another page and the link fall under "See also". I think it should either be :"See also contains multiple links", or "There's only a link to Controversies and it falls under 'Controversies' "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenzhengyou (talk • contribs) 03:25, July 24, 2017 (UTC) Zhenzhengyou (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zhenzhengyou:, it is very appreciated that you explained your change in the edit summary and then further expanded on the reasons for your edit here. Just so you know for the future, however, on a page as high-profile as this one, potentially contentious changes should probably be allowed to achieve consensus through talk page discussion first before changing the article. I have reverted the change in section heading so that the discussion can proceed and not as a rebuke or rejection of your edit. If no other editor objects through this discussion, you can then feel free to restore it. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Added the controversies section back. After all, there were already two main sections about controversies. --MarioGom (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable source

The only source is a 2005 article published by conservative think tank AEI by Resident Fellow Roger Bate who - since 2004 - had been receiving money (see section "Competing interests") from Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis which was involved in a legal battle against use of generic drugs in India with implications for other poor countries in Asia and Africa. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The Clinton Foundation & the WMF

Should this page acknowledge that the Chief Communications Officer of the Clinton Foundation also works for (and donates to) the WMF? This has been pointed out in a number of venues, not all of which are RS (Wikipediocracy §§, Créoliste, prn.fm, On Contact) or non-primary (WMF sites, 990 forms, benefactors list, etc.) It would seem drafting something transparent might be salutary for all concerned. Anyone disagree? — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Pay to play

Where are the notations of controversies regarding her use of the foundation as a slush fund in the "pay to play" scandal leading up to the 2016 election? Allegations of criminal conspiracies with powerful interests have not been addressed. Markvrb (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Markvrb, considering that they are WP:FRINGE theories that were concocted to damage Hillary's presidential campaign, they do not need to be addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The Clinton foundation is a slush fund built from pay to play. This is evidence to the amount of money that was donated to the foundation leading up to Clinton losing to Trump but than most of those donations stopping. Unless we can cite some articles that proves that the Clinton Foundation was not a pay to play, then this statement "Beginning in 2015, the Foundation was accused of wrongdoing, including a bribery and pay-to-play scheme, but multiple investigations through 2019 found no evidence of malfeasance." needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Librab103 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Your unsubstantiated claim that it is a "slush fund" is what would need verification. Because "multiple investigations through 2019 found no evidence of malfeasance." – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation

Do we know if the US based offshore? A charity owes no taxes on donations. So why not base your bank accounts in the USA? Does offshore = no reporting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.8.146 (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not clear what you're asking. The foundation is a US-based organization. You can read their financials here. Kuru (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The Qatar donation scandal

There are a few issues with our coverage of this scandal:

• We mention that Reuters reported the issue in November 2016 and then mention an opinion column from February 2015. We need to provide a more accurate date for the first reporting of the issue. From Rubin's 2015 article, it appears WSJ had an article about it in early 2015.
• Our second sentence is "Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin opined that the Qatari gift "raised ethical questions" because of the nation's support for Hamas". The phrase "ethical questions" appears twice in Rubin's piece, once in the headline and once in a quote from the WSJ article. In neither case is the "ethical question" linked to Qatar's support for Hamas. The WSJ quote is "... raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency". The key idea from Rubin's article is that taking money from foreign entities provided a conflict of interest with Clinton's presidential candidacy. The last sentence of Rubin's article is "Hillary, give the money back. Or don’t run. You can’t keep the money and run". Burrobert (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

What "scandal?" soibangla (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

"In an extraordinary report that has not yet been fully digested, the Wall Street Journal tells us that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has received millions from foreign governments including Qatar". "She is beholden in a meaningful sense to its donors. No presidential candidate can justify a conflict of interest of this magnitude; it is not merely the appearance of conflict but actual conflict of interest". Burrobert (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

These matters have been exhaustively investigated, most recently by Trump/Sessions federal prosecutor John W. Huber. Despite the donations "raising questions" in the run-up to the election, no quid pro quo or other malfeasance has been found. None. And you are citing Jennifer Rubin, a conservative columnist, from 2015. soibangla (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Call it whatever you like. What about the two issues raised above? Burrobert (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You are calling it whatever you like: a scandal. It wasn't. soibangla (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE CLASSIC. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Bump* Burrobert (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

i.e. Strictly UNDUE. Not UNDUE LITE. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

But seriously, and without the CAPITALS, don't you think we should get the date correct? Burrobert (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

1. Good point about the misleading mention of Hamas.
2. This was a faux scandal as there was only an appearance of a COI. The Clintons do not personally profit from donations to the Foundation. It is the poor and suffering benefactors who benefit. Using one's status to encourage charitable giving is no crime. It's a good way to use one's celebrity status.
3. There would only have been a real scandal if there had been an improper quid pro quo. There was not. -- Valjean (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho. Let's leave the scandal question out of the discussion then since it was not my intention to include the term in the article. The two points I raised, and which have not yet been discussed here, are:

• We tell the reader that the issue was first raised in November 2016. It had already been discussed in February 2015.
• The "ethical question" discussed in the source does not relate to Hamas, but to a perceived (by Rubin) COI with Clinton's bid for the presidency.

Burrobert (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bingo! Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)