Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.

12 Responses to “Clintons report $109 million since 2000”

1. Tax » Clintons report $109 million since 2000 says:

   April 5, 2008 at 4:44 am

   [...] Coupons, Bargains, and Free Stuff – Dealighted Discount Shopping wrote an interesting post today on Clintons report $109 million since 2000Here’s a quick excerptThe campaign released tax returns from 2000 through 2006 and gave highlights from their 2007 return. The Clintons have asked for an extension… [...]
2. JohnKonop says:

   April 5, 2008 at 7:02 am

   What Did Bill Clinton Do To Get $15M From Ron Burkle?

   HP-The campaign press statement accompanying the release on Friday of Hillary Clinton’s 2000 – 2007 tax returns includes some useful summary data for the media: Bill and Hillary Clinton’s total income over the past 8 years, $109 million; her Senate salary, $1.1 million; his presidential pension, $1.2 million; her book royalties, $10.5 million; his book royalties, $29.6 million; and his speaking fees, $51.9 million.

   One big line item is missing from the press summary however: the $15 million paid to Bill Clinton between 2003 and 2007 by Ron Burkle’s Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund.

   In fact, the Burkle payments, buried deep in the income tax forms themselves, were the only real news in tax documents, which were made public for the first time.

   The Clintons’ huge book profits, her salary and his speaking fees, were all well known. Hillary Clinton has been required to disclose details on many of those sources of income in the annual financial disclosure statements she has to file as a member of the U.S. Senate.

   But until the release of the tax returns on April 4, the only disclosure Hillary Clinton had made about her husband’s financial relationship with Burkle was the fact that Bill Clinton earned “more than $1,000″ annually from the partnerships.

   Now that the Clintons have disclosed that the former president received from 250 to 500 times “more than $1,000″ each year since 2002, the glaring question that remains unanswered is: What did he do for all this pocket change?

   Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson provided a statement that did not reveal much:

   “The President provides his best advice on potential investments, advocates generally on behalf of the funds, and seeks to create opportunities for investors to consider investing in these funds or in the investments the funds make.”
   In more common parlance, this translates to “rainmaker” and “door opener.”

   Burkle, who is worth at least $2.5 billion according to Forbes, and Clinton are business and social partners, often traveling the Los Angeles social circuit together.

   Burkle specializes in putting together funds that invest in city and other businesses. Burkle and Magic Johnson are working together on creating an urban investment fund.

   Burkle and Yucaipa have been involved in a number of controversies that have reportedly prompted concerns in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign that her bid might be damaged by resulting adverse publicity.

   Bill Clinton was, according to sources close to both Burkle and Clinton, deeply angered by a September 26, 2007, front page Wall Street Journal article detailing some of Yucaipa’s questionable dealings. The story, which broke on the same day that heads of state and business leaders convened in New York to discuss the Clinton Global Initiative, described plans to invest millions of dollars in a venture to buy up Catholic Church property.

   Clinton, according to aides, intends to sever his financial ties with Burkle, although he may do so only if his wife wins the nomination, an increasingly unlikely prospect.
3. JohnKonop says:

   April 5, 2008 at 1:56 pm

   Clinton Charitable Contributions Went To Clinton Foundation

   HP-The New York Times notes that most of the Clinton’s charitable contributions went to their own foundation, which has yet to give away much of the money:

   During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy.
4. JohnKonop says:

   April 5, 2008 at 2:05 pm

   Tax returns show Clintons got rich quick

   POLITICO-Hillary and Bill Clinton got rich quick after leaving the White House, pulling in $111 million in total income from 2000 through last year, according to tax documents posted Friday evening on her presidential campaign’s website.

   From the combined $358,000 they reported in 2000 to the $16 million they earned in 2001, their income increased by nearly 50 times in the first year after Bill Clinton left office, highlighting the lucrative opportunities awaiting former presidents.

   The speaking circuit was especially good to Bill Clinton, who earned nearly $52 million from it, including millions in foreign income. And the two books each penned yielded more than $40 million, including an eye-popping $15 million advance paid to Bill Clinton for his 2004 autobiography “My Life.” That’s $3 million more than what had been previously reported – which at the time was believed to be the largest book advance ever.

   Hillary Clinton’s two books – the autobiography “Living History” and “It Takes a Village” – yielded $10.5 million. She paid $893,000 in “collaboration fees and expenses” (for assistance in researching and writing her autobiography), as well as $5,000 for a Lexis/Nexis subscription and Internet access.

   When you add the book hauls to the more than $1 million she received in salary since taking office in 2001 as a senator from New York, it’s clear she had more than enough money to loan $5 million to her cash-strapped presidential campaign in the run-up to the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests.

   The documents were eagerly anticipated by reporters, opposition researchers and gadflies of all stripes in part because it was unclear where she got the coin to back her February claim that the loan came “from my money. That’s where I got the money.”

   The 221 pages of documents released Friday – actually 220 pages of tax returns for 2000 through 2006, plus a one-page summary of the couple’s 2007 taxes – came after weeks of pressure from opponents, who have long accused the Clintons of having a penchant for secrecy. The pressure escalated last week when Clinton’s rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama made public his returns, at which time Clinton said she hoped to release hers “within the next week.”

   The document dump came more than one week later, late on a Friday afternoon, diminishing the likelihood most media outlets would be able to quickly conduct a detailed analysis and ensuring the story would land over the weekend, when people tend to pay less attention to the news media.

   It’s become increasingly common for presidential candidates to release their tax returns or portions thereof, and with Clinton’s Friday release, more than 25 years of her family’s tax returns are now publicly available.

   The Clintons’ tax returns from 1980 through 1991 were made public during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. The White House released the couple’s returns in each year of the Clinton administration.

   That level of disclosure, asserted Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson, is “a record matched by few people in public service.”

   Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, did not release his returns during his unsuccessful 2000 bid for his party’s presidential nomination.

   This time around, he will, but not until “mid April,” according to spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker.

   The Clintons’ returns show that since 2000, they paid nearly $34 million in federal taxes and donated more than $10 million to charities, including to their family foundation.

   Unlike Obama and his wife Michelle, the Clintons checked the box to set aside $3 for the presidential public financing system on their returns each year. Hillary Clinton has not indicated whether she’d participate in the system if she won the nomination.

   The documents reveal other interesting bits of new information – and raise some new questions that could prove fodder for opponents – about the life of a family that’s already been intensely scrutinized.

   The returns show more than $50,000 in income (and $40,000 in losses) in 2006 from funds with the name Quellos, an asset manager accused in a scathing bipartisan 2006 Senate committee report of structuring “tax shelters.”

   The Clintons received an extension in each of the last three years and they intend to request one for 2007. That’s because they are waiting to receive details on partnership income, including investments made by their blind trust, the campaign said in a statement. It was dissolved last year.

   The Clintons claimed more than $650,000 in foreign tax credits for more than $8 million in foreign income, which Carson said “was from speeches President Clinton made abroad and from income from the blind trust.”

   From 2001 to 2006, the Clintons collected nearly $41,000 in “imputed interest” from loans to family. Carson wouldn’t reveal the indebted family members or the circumstances of the loans, calling that information “personal; the Clintons are going to respect their family members’ privacy.”

   During her last year as First Lady, Hillary Clinton’s occupation was listed “attorney,” which Carson said “was simply a decision made by the tax preparer.”

   The Clintons paid $39,000 in tax preparation costs in the covered period.

   They paid $459,000 in mortgage interest on their home in suburban New York.

   Hillary Clinton in 2002 paid $8,650 for the preparation of her Senate financial disclosure statement, though Carson said “none of it was deducted due to tax law limitations.”

   The last year the Clintons listed their daughter Chelsea as a dependent was 2002, during which she turned 22 years old.
5. Bill says:

   April 5, 2008 at 3:10 pm

   With the Clintons we’re talking about a modern-day “Bonnie and Clyde” team that simply wants to be the “big dogs” on a global scale.
6. David O'Rear says:

   April 5, 2008 at 8:19 pm

   Anti-capitalists unite!
7. JohnKonop says:

   April 5, 2008 at 8:32 pm

   David

   I do not get your point?
8. David O'Rear says:

   April 6, 2008 at 7:35 pm

   Maybe someone else who doesn’t think actually earning money is bad might explain this to Mr Konop.
9. Bill says:

   April 6, 2008 at 9:08 pm

   Come on, Randi Rhodes is right Hillary is a whore. And this stuff has been around for years. Norman Hsu, Lippo group, Whitewater, Cosco, Johnnie Chung, cocain cartels in Mena Arkansas, the Clinton body count, ect… Where have you people been?
10. captain_menace says:

    April 6, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    I’m scratching my head trying to identify a single politician who isn’t a whore?

    Pleasure for money…
11. JohnKonop says:

    April 7, 2008 at 6:39 am

    David

    The question what did Billary promise lobbyist for the money?
12. David O'Rear says:

    April 7, 2008 at 7:55 pm

    The answer is ask them, not me.

|