The title of President of the United States has often been referred to as “the leader of the free world,” and yet, the rhetoric of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence clearly establish that our political system is to be composed “of the people, for the people.” That means we expect those we appoint head of state to identify with the poorest and meekest among us.
One of the ways American leaders show humility is by giving back to the community that has raised them up. Campaign finance reform advocates may berate it, but the fact is that success in our political system takes a successful individual to achieve. It’s only natural we should ask what our candidates have given back in the time before they found themselves in the presidential spotlight.
2016 gives us two markedly different candidates, but each one has enjoyed the kind of financial success that should empower them to give back. Each candidate can and does make claims about the charitable contributions they’ve made to bolster their own cause, but what do we learn by checking the facts about these statements.
Dr. Evil Would Be Proud
With the presidency at stake, you can’t expect Trump or Clinton to hesitate when it comes to describing their charitable legacy. Before we check the facts, though, we have to know what facts to check.
Donald Trump has claimed to be worth a staggering $10 billion. Regardless of exactly how accurate that actual number is, a figure like that should make it easy for one man to find some extra funds around to donate. Per his own claims, Trump has donated $100 million to charity over the last five years.
Trump’s name does appear at the beginning of a foundation for veterans, and he has cited his charitable works with the former service members repeatedly throughout his campaign. Still, media pressure has incited some frantic actions from Trump to legitimize his claims about the amount of his donations.
The issue with Trump’s claims is that almost none of the charitable works can be traced back to Trump’s personal accounts. While the mogul claims to have plans to donate proceeds from television shows and consumer products to charity, most of the donations he cites are another thing entirely.
For example, $63.8 million of the $100 million in donations Trump brags about came in the form of agreements not to over-develop properties Trump owns. He’s also been called out for around 3,000 free rounds of golf, which he claims as charitable donations, but which investigation will show are frequently tied to his business interests.
Giving Back to the Village
In fairness, it should be said that Trump doesn’t come from the political background Clinton does. He probably didn’t set out 30 years ago to be a presidential candidate, but Clinton was highly involved in public works long before the White House was in her or her husband’s sights.
Clinton has been a women’s and children’s rights advocate since as early as the 1960s. During her time at Yale, she dug into matters of racial bias in schools, and her work with the Children’s Defense Fund, founded in 1973 by Marian Edelman, helped to back the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.
Clinton has recognized and worked with a collection of charitable organizations ranging from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to Stop Global Warming to US Doctors for Africa. She and husband Bill report having donated nearly $15 million to charity and continue to promote organizations like the ABWE, that provide opportunities for young people to make a difference around the world through missionary work.
Clinton’s work, however, has not gone without its fair share of scrutiny. Much of the money she’s donated has come by way of the Clinton foundation, set up by her and former president Bill Clinton. While neither of the two receive a salary from the foundation, there has been some question of where it gets its money.
During her time as Secretary of State, Clinton’s foundation received multiple donations from foreign governments with no discernable interest in the foundation’s causes. These donors include the Algerian government and other foreign states with shady track records in their relations with the US including Kuwait, Oman and Qatar. There were also donations from less suspect locales like Australia.
Dollars and Sense
It would be foolish to try and evaluate 2016’s candidates with the perspective that one is going to come out of the wash lemony-fresh. Still, investigating the financial backgrounds that got Clinton and Trump where they are today, and which both of them repeatedly cite as points of pride, reveals some ugly truths.
Neither candidate will come away from election season unscathed, but compared to Clinton’s questionable foundation activities that in the long run did contribute to a good cause, Trump seems exposed in not participating at all.
Should we be surprised that a man who claims to have given $100 million to charity in fact pales in comparison to his competitor who’s donated a sixth of that amount? Perhaps not, because at this point in election 2016, should we be surprised by anything?