Trump Foundation and reporting/editorializing from WP and HP

[texas_ex2000]

First, I am a banker in the not-for-profit industry. Before that, I was the director of finance at a mid-sized 501(c)3 in Washington, DC.

Let's look at this HP article first:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/investigation-trump-foundation_us_57d881c2e4b0aa4b722d5123?

New York Attorney General Conducting ‘Inquiry’ Into Trump Foundation
The Trump Foundation uses money from other people to finance Trump’s high-profile charity giving.

Here's the first problem with this report...the headline. "Foundation uses money from other people to finance Trump’s high-profile charity giving." That sentence could describe almost every foundation out there. A foundation, any foundation, is a non-profit - meaning there are no owners, partners, or stockholders. That is why it is a tax-exempt organization. It may (or may not) have a founder or founders on the Board of Trustees, but that is not required. Foundations operate by raising money and donating that money to other organizations. Some foundations are affiliated to another organization (e.g. The Longhorn Foundation, or Exxon Mobil Foundation), some are extremely well endowed by a family or an estate (e.g. Rockefeller Foundation), few are endowed entirely by their founder, and many are small foundations named after or established in honor of a person but said foundation's whole balance sheet are donations from other people.

In other words, there is nothing illegal or even out of the ordinary for a foundation to be completely endowed by "other people," or more accurately foundation donors. Just because the foundation has a name of a person, living or dead, on the door does not mean money must have to be coming from that named individual. There is also nothing to suggest donors qualified their gifts with a match from Trump himself.

The Trump Foundation is tiny. They had ~$503,000 dollars in total revenues with total assets of $1.3 million dollars. Trump Foundation 2014 990:
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/133/133404773/133404773_201412_990PF.pdf

In all honesty, this is a vanity project...just like the thousands of other tiny vanity foundations rich people set up. But just because something is a vanity project doesn't mean they don't do good work...and it certainly doesn't make it illegal to put your name on it. And if you work in finance or fundraising in the not-for-profit space, you know that the money from certain foundations are from groups of contributors to that foundation - not from 1 individual. More importantly, you don't care.

Second article from Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?postshare=1591473543099606&tid=ss_tw
There's a lot made about this,

In two cases, he has used money from his charity to buy himself a gift. In one of those cases — not previously reported — Trump spent $20,000 of money earmarked for charitable purposes to buy a six-foot-tall painting of himself.

The writer goes into a little discussion about IRS rules of "self-dealing" - or not using the foundation's money for yourself. The Trump Foundation marked "no" to self-dealing on their forms.

WELL THEN...FORGET THE CLINTON FOUNDATION. THIS MUST BE ILLEGAL!!!


When donors give money to a foundation, or any non-profit, they can make their gift either restricted or unrestricted. A restricted gift is earmarked for specific program. The endowed "Deez Professor of Constitutional Law," the "Husker Scholar," the "Htown77 Center for Rocket Science", etc. Unrestricted gifts are general donations to pay for fixed costs, marketing, administration, etc. And typically, the assets and donations to small foundations are usually all unrestricted. All of the assets of the Trump Foundation are unrestricted. And do you know what foundations (sometimes) do with their unrestricted funds? They buy paintings and crap to hang on their walls and decorate the offices so they aren't bare. This includes buying/commissioning paintings of their founder(s) for their office - in this case the Trump Tower. We had several paintings of founders in my old 501(c)3.

The author of this article, and President Obama, also uses the term "buy" very loosely. In the case of the painting, the Trump Foundation acquired it during an auction to benefit a children's charity. While a little different, the Tebow helmet mentioned in the article as another gift to Trump, was also a Foundation donation (a grant when a foundation makes it) to the Susan G. Komen Foundation at a fundraiser where the helmet was auctioned. That helmet can be re-auctioned to raise funds for the Trump Foundation or it can be displayed at the Foundation's office in Trump Tower. Grants from general charity foundations to mission specific foundations is completely normal in the philanthropy industry.

Of concern is that the Trump Foundation paid a $2,500 fine for $25,000 donation to an organization called And Justice for All, an electioneering communications organization supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2013. Maybe more will come of this, but here's what I know: 1) Obama's IRS investigated this and gave the Foundation a $2,500 penalty for this reporting mistake and 2) Washington Post "journalists" twist and sensationalize not-for-profit business operations like it's their personal John Grissom novel.

I will wait for the findings of this Eric Schneiderman's (New York Attorney General, Clintonite, and a Democrat who serves on Hillary Clinton’s leadership council in New York state) "investigation" before making a final judgement, but won't hold my breath.

 

[Horn6721]

texasex2000
Thank you for explaining this. Unless you deal in it it is unknown and easy for media to manipulate
Which of course they have done.
A really informative post.

 

[iatrogenic]

First, I am a banker in the not-for-profit industry. Before that, I was the director of finance at a mid-sized 501(c)3 in Washington, DC.

Let's look at this HP article first:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/investigation-trump-foundation_us_57d881c2e4b0aa4b722d5123?

Here's the first problem with this report...the headline. "Foundation uses money from other people to finance Trump’s high-profile charity giving." That sentence could describe almost every foundation out there. A foundation, any foundation, is a non-profit - meaning there are no owners, partners, or stockholders. That is why it is a tax-exempt organization. It may (or may not) have a founder or founders on the Board of Trustees, but that is not required. Foundations operate by raising money and donating that money to other organizations. Some foundations are affiliated to another organization (e.g. The Longhorn Foundation, or Exxon Mobil Foundation), some are extremely well endowed by a family or an estate (e.g. Rockefeller Foundation), few are endowed entirely by their founder, and many are small foundations named after or established in honor of a person but said foundation's whole balance sheet are donations from other people.

In other words, there is nothing illegal or even out of the ordinary for a foundation to be completely endowed by "other people," whatever that means. Just because the foundation has a name of a person, living or dead, on the door does not mean money must have to be coming from that named individual. The Trump Foundation is tiny. They had ~$574,000 dollars in total revenues with total assets of $1.4 million dollars. Trump Foundation 2013 990:
https://pp-990.s3.amazonaws.com/2014_12_PF/13-3404773_990PF_201312.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAI7C6X5GT42DHYZIA/20160914/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20160914T215932Z&X-Amz-Expires=1800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=973543e3225d26ce59dd51ffbcf4cdc22a39a7f338a62b66cf716f3b0497a89c

In all honesty, this is a vanity project...just like the thousands of other tiny vanity Foundations rich people set up. But just because something is a vanity project doesn't mean they don't do good work...and it certainly doesn't make it illegal to put your name on it. And if you work in finance or fundraising in the not-for-profit space, you know that the money from certain foundations are from groups of contributors to that foundation...and more importantly, you don't care.

Second article from Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?postshare=1591473543099606&tid=ss_tw
There's a lot made about this,
The writer goes into a little discussion about IRS rules of "self-dealing" - or not using the foundation's money for yourself. The Trump Foundation marked "no" to self-dealing on their forms.

WELL THEN...FORGET THE CLINTON FOUNDATION THIS MUST BE ILLEGAL!!!


When donors give money to a foundation, or any non-profit, they can make their gift either restricted or unrestricted. A restricted gift is earmarked for specific program. The endowed "Deez Professor of Constitutional Law," the "Husker Scholar," the "Htown77 Center for Rocket Science", etc. Unrestricted gifts are general donations to pay for fixed costs, marketing, administration, etc. And typically, the assets and donations to small foundations are usually all unrestricted. And do you know what foundations (usually) do with some their unrestricted funds? They buy/commission paintings of their founder(s) of their office - in this case the Trump Tower. We had several paintings of founders in my old 501(c)3.

The author of this article also uses the term "buy" very loosely. In the case of this painting, the Trump Foundation acquired it during an auction to benefit a children's charity. While a little different, the Tebow helmet this article mentions is a little different was also a donation (a grant when a foundation makes it) to the Susan G. Komen Foundation at a fundraiser where the helmet was auctioned. That helmet can be re-auctioned to raise funds for the Trump Foundation or it can be displayed at the Foundation's office in Trump Tower. Grants from general charity foundations to mission specific foundations is completely normal in the philanthropy industry.

Of concern is that the Trump Foundation paid a $2,500 fine for $25,000 donation to a charity called And Justice for All, an electioneering communications organization supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2013. Maybe more will come of this, but here's what I know 1) Obama's IRS investigated this and gave the Foundation a $2,500 penalty for this reporting mistake and 2) Washington Post "journalists" twist and sensationalize not-for-profit business operations like it's their personal John Grissom novel.

I will wait for the findings of this Eric Schneiderman's (New York Attorney General, Clintonite, and a Democrat who serves on Hillary Clinton’s leadership council in New York state) "investigation" before making a final judgement, but won't hold my breath.

Makes perfect sense! I did check the recipients of the foundations you mentioned. Here are the 2015 scholarship winners:

Htown77 Center for Rocket Science

Deez Professor of Constitutional Law

Husker Scholar -Dual Winners!

 

[texas_ex2000]

Here's the worst part of the reporting, which may be downright unethical. Huffington Post, Washington Post, and President Obama himself have said that Trump bought this painting (and transitively the helmet) with other people's money as a gift for himself.

What actually happened is that both the painting (made that evening at the charity event - one of these "instal-paintings" that artists do at these fundraisers ) and the helmet were auction items benefiting the Susan G. Komen Foundation (helmet) and a children's charity I believe in Florida (painting). These were separate events in different places years apart. After winning the auctions, The Trump Foundation made donations to both charities. While his style is a little too New York City flashy for my tastes, the bottom line is donations like that are completely consistent with the activity of a charitable foundation. Money/assets of the Trump Foundation were granted to another mission specific charity.

Even if, a big if, the painting is at one of Trump's golf courses, in my opinion it still would mean nothing to the self-dealing rules both from a common sense and letter of the law perspective. And it certainly ain't worth the wasted New York taxpayer's money. As a banker I have attended many a black-tie gala on my bank's behalf. My seats were paid for by donations by my bank's foundation. Every gala gives you take home gifts...nice bottles of wine, etc. While the wine was nice, I bet, much like the price of that Tebow helmet, the cost of my bank's donation was multiples times its value. That's why it's called charity and not shopping.

I'm not voting for Trump, but you have to be skeptical about what the media "reports" to you.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Here's the worst part of the reporting, which may be downright unethical. Huffington Post, Washington Post, and President Obama himself have said that Trump bought this painting (and transitively the helmet) with other people's money as a gift for himself.

First, this entire thread is excellent. You did a hell of a job breaking this down.

Second, I noticed this too. It's remarkable how supposedly unbiased and analytical people just threw in this assumption that he bought it for himself with no reason to assume it.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Here's the article on the Susan G. Komen fundraiser:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-himself-a-tim-tebow-signed-football-helmet/

Instead, the Susan G. Komen organization — the breast-cancer nonprofit that hosted the party — got a $12,000 payment from another nonprofit , the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

Can you BELIEVE that? Oh, and let's not mention the party was actually a fundraiser.

The same kind of autographed helmet and jersey that Trump bought for $12,000 are now available for about $415, total, online.

Exactly bro. That's why it's called a donation and not buying.

This David Fahrenthold at the Washington Post is such a hack.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This David Fahrenthold at the Washington Post is such a hack.

Not surprising. The Post has been obnoxiously partisan this election. Furthermore, liberals aren't known for their charity, so here's probably pretty ignorant about the nuts and bolts of it.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Not surprising. The Post has been obnoxiously partisan this election. Furthermore, liberals aren't known for their charity, so here's probably pretty ignorant about the nuts and bolts of it.

The Post is out of control this election.

This guy in particular is on a Twitter fueled crusade to bring Trump down. He made a list of some 200 charities basically on nothing more than did they have a gala in New York City and Florida the past 5 years, and called their receptionist asking out of the blue if Trump individually made a donation to them out of his own pocket.

The shoddy reporting on buying gifts is journalistic negligence. This calling 200 charities thing is something else. It's a waste of the Washington Post's time and brand. And it doesn't matter. There are hell of a lot more important news to be reporting and investigating on these candidates and this election.

 

[Hollandtx]

Y'all have it ALL wrong. Fahrenthold himself told Megan Kelly tonight that he is actually trying to prove Trump right in that he donates to charities.
He is just an honest, hard workin' journalist trying to clear up some muddy water.
C'mon people. Have some faith in our news media.
Fahrenthold is a helper, and I personally find him a beacon of light in an otherwise partisan election.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Couldn't this all be resolved if Trump released his tax returns? Trumps claims are that he's donated "10's of millions" of dollars to charity. Mike Pence repeated the claim this week. Like much of Trump's claims, he hasn't actually shared any facts. In fact, it took the Washington Post's continued followup for Trump to follow-through on his Iowa primary commitment to donate to veterans groups months later. Isn't the role of journalism to question and validate candidates claims? For all the appropriate grief HRC has gotten about lack of transparency on her recent health, why is Trump getting a pass on his finances?

 

[iatrogenic]

Define "getting a pass" on his finances.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Define "getting a pass" on his finances.

Have you seen Trump's taxes? His business acumen and charitable giving have been a centerpiece of his campaign persona. He's getting heat from the liberal leaning media but his supporters and right leaning media have completely given him a pass.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Couldn't this all be resolved if Trump released his tax returns? Trumps claims are that he's donated "10's of millions" of dollars to charity. Mike Pence repeated the claim this week. Like much of Trump's claims, he hasn't actually shared any facts. In fact, it took the Washington Post's continued followup for Trump to follow-through on his Iowa primary commitment to donate to veterans groups months later. Isn't the role of journalism to question and validate candidates claims? For all the appropriate grief HRC has gotten about lack of transparency on her recent health, why is Trump getting a pass on his finances?

Because guys like Fahernthold who don't know the difference between donations and buying will make things up. He'll be in a conspiracy nirvana through November if Trump ever released his tax returns which would inevitably be complex, long, and above this hack's head.

Question? Sure. Validate? Sure? Fahernthold hasn't done that at all. Fahernthold accuses and manipulates his readers.

Trump is not getting a pass on his finances. Nor should he. He's being attacked by the media and it's hurting him. It would hurt him more to release them, not because of any impropriety, but because twitter armchair CPAs and self-imagined tax lawyers will go full-on aluminum cone hat.

Additionally, the "grief" Hillary is receiving is not undeserved or unfair. She was the Secretary of State, a lifelong professional politician, an elected US Senator, and had the highest level of security clearance. Unlike the concerns of Trump's, a private businessman, finances, which are mainly hopeful blind accusations by anti-Trumpers, Hillary has laid a trail of crumbs straight into an oven of corruption.

As a public official, her propriety is rightfully a massive issue and moreso than Trumps. On the other hand, because of her public life she also benefits from, fairly or unfairly, the label of "most qualified presidential candidate in history."

 

[Seattle Husker]

Because guys like Fahernthold who don't know the difference between donations and buying will make things up. He'll be in a conspiracy nirvana through November if Trump ever released his tax returns which would inevitably be complex, long, and above this hack's head.

Question? Sure. Validate? Sure? Fahernthold hasn't done that at all. Fahernthold accuses and manipulates his readers.

Trump is not getting a pass on his finances. Nor should he. He's being attacked by the media and it's hurting him. It would hurt him more to release them, not because of any impropriety, but because twitter armchair CPAs and self-imagined tax lawyers will go full-on alimnium cone hat.

Additionally, the "grief" Hillary is receiving is not undeserved or unfair. She was the Secretary of State, a lifelong professinal politician, an elected US Senator, and had the highest level of security clearance. Unlike the concerns of Trump's, a private businessman, finances, which are mainly hopeful blind accusations by anti-Trumpers, Hillary has laid a trail of crumbs straight into an oven of corruption.

As a public official, her propriety is rightfully a massive issue and moreso than Trumps. On the other hand, because of her public life she also benefits from, fairly or unfairly, the label of "most qualified presidential candidate in history."

So, is the argument that Trump shouldn't release his tax returns because some journalists may misunderstand (misrepresent?) them thus we voters don't have a right to know?

I don't know anything about this particular journalist but in the vein of HRC's email scandal, the Trump campaign has been less than forthcoming on any questions related to his finances.

Did I say HRC's grief was undeserved? No. Quite the opposite on many occasions on this board. You appear to be making an argument that Trump shouldn't get similar grief for his lack of transparency. In fact, you've either taken issue with a journalist trying to do some investigative journalism on limited information or his analysis. Either way, in the only interview I've seen with this journalist he claims he's asked the Trump Campaign over and over for comments or to supply more information to no avail. Should he simply give up?

 

[iatrogenic]

Have you seen Trump's taxes? His business acumen and charitable giving have been a centerpiece of his campaign persona. He's getting heat from the liberal leaning media but his supporters and right leaning media have completely given him a pass.

Texas Ex 2000 is correct.

First, if he's "getting heat", he's not getting a pass. Why in the world would his supporters bust his chops? Hell, Hillary's supporters seem to be on the verge of awarding her medals every time she lies and violates ethics and rules.

Second, the MSM and the vast majority of Americans, from what the evidence indicates, wouldn't know the first thing about IRS or FASB rules, and would not understand the tax returns. You, in fact, have stated that "Trump is leveraging the depreciation on his real estate to avoid taxes", which indicates complete ignorance of depreciation expense.

Third, I'm 100% certain that the IRS, which has violated the Hatch Act by treating Conservative non-profits unfairly, will, for the 16th year in a row, give the Republican nominee's taxes a detailed examination. You can rest assured that his taxes are legit. If the IRS could ever finish the audit, Trump has stated he will release the returns. Maybe they should concentrate on doing their job instead of acting in a partisan political fashion.

Fourth, the centerpiece of Trump's campaign has been that the current system is rigged. Hillary's "pay-to-play" as it relates to the Clinton Foundation and appointment of Ambassadors, the DNC's treatment of Sanders, and Obama's shameful D.O.J. have repeatedly verified Trump's accusations.

 

[texas_ex2000]

So, is the argument that Trump shouldn't release his tax returns because some journalists may misunderstand (misrepresent?) them thus we voters don't have a right to know?

I don't know anything about this particular journalist but in the vein of HRC's email scandal, the Trump campaign has been less than forthcoming on any questions related to his finances.

Voters should be able to see, in the spirit of transparency, the candidates' taxes. Candidates should, justifiably, expect harsh critiscm and blowback for not disclosing their taxes.

Your analogy between Trump's taxes and Clinton's email is not accurate. The disclosure of taxes by presidential candidates is voluntary. However, the preservation of government and classified email is federal law. Additionally, Congress subpoenaed Clinton for those emails, and subsequent to and in violation of that subpoena her "IT consultants" destroyed those emails. <= Seriously folks.

Additionally, Obama's IRS has also acceped and audited Trumps tax returns and found nothing. The entire Clinton email episode was an FBI criminal investigation into the mishandling and integrity of classified national security information of the highest levels.

They're not in the same circulatory system, much less the same vein.