News Reporter: Fact Checker: Charity or Slush Fund? A tale of two foundations

Friday 29 June 2018

Fact Checker: Charity or Slush Fund? A tale of two foundations

Democracy Dies in Darkness

The truth behind the rhetoric

Charity or Slush Fund? A tale of two foundations

Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale tweeted, "Data doesn't lie: Clinton Foundation was 'slush fund' while Hillary was a Senator/Secretary/Pres candidate. Trump Foundation helped people in need with 100% to charities, but @realDonaldTrump voluntarily shut his down. Yet who is the sleazy NY AG suing?!" Parscale's tweet included a chart claiming 100% of the Trump Foundation's funds went to charity while only 6.4% of the Clinton Foundation's did.

First of all, though both organizations have the word "foundation" in their names, they are different kinds of entities. The Trump Foundation is a relatively small family charity; the Clinton Foundation is a large public charity. So, Parscale is already making a false comparison. But then the expense-charity ratio for the Clinton Foundation is nearly backwards and the chart ignores the well-documented issues with the way the Trump Foundation has been run.

This is a classic case of using data in a misleading way. Parscale earns Four Pinocchios.

Enjoy this newsletter? Forward it to someone else who'd like it! If this e-mail was forwarded to you, sign up here for the weekly newsletter. Hear something fact-checkable? Send it here, we'll check it out.

Democrats' strained spin on the Supreme Court vacancy

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his retirement. And the fight in Congress over when his yet-to-be nominated replacement started almost instantaneously. On the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) said, "Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016: not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year." Anything else, he proclaimed, would be the "absolute height of hypocrisy." Strong words. But are they accurate?

In 2016, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to hold hearings (much less a vote) on President Obama's last Supreme Court nominee. At the time, McConnell argued, "The American people are in the middle of choosing who the next president is going to be. And that next president ought to have this appointment, which will affect the Supreme Court, for probably a quarter of a century."

The key words here — "choosing the next president," not the next Congress. McConnell meant presidential elections — not all elections. Democrats are simply spinning a false narrative.

It's tough out there to be a fact checker

Don't take it from us! Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler sent a dispatch back from Global Fact, an annual summit organized by the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), describing how fact checkers across the globe are grappling with increasing distrust of the media, the spread of 'fake news' and charges of selection bias. The IFCN has grown from a some three dozen fact-checkers just four years ago to a network that spans six continents and more than 50 countries. And with that growth, of course, comes growing pains.

We're always looking for fact-check suggestions.

You can also reach us via email, Twitter (@GlennKesslerWP, @mmkelly22, @rizzoTK or use #FactCheckThis), or Facebook (Fact Checker). Read about our rating scale here, and sign up here for our weekly Fact Checker newsletter.