NY Post editorial omitted that Clinton Foundation growth reportedly connected to expanded philanthropy work

A December 21 New York Post editorial asserted that "when it comes to [Bill and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's] finances, there's always a sordid little back story -- and loads of unanswered questions" and that this is "precisely the case with more than $500 million that's been donated to the William J. Clinton Foundation." The editorial then claimed that a December 20 New York Times article reported that the Clinton Foundation's "donations are up 70 percent since Hillary's campaign got under way -- with two-thirds of the money coming from just 11 donors." In fact, while the Times reported that "the pace of giving quickened" in 2006 as "Mrs. Clinton moved closer to announcing her candidacy," it also reported that the increased contributions coincided with the foundation's expansion "into issues like treating AIDS in the developing world and addressing global poverty and climate change." In purporting to represent what the Times reported, the Post left out the link the Times made between the foundation's expansion into global issues and the increased contributions.

From the Times article:

Over the last decade, former President Bill Clinton has raised more than $500 million for his foundation, allowing him to build a glass-and-steel presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., and burnish his image as an impresario of global philanthropy. The foundation has closely guarded the identities of its donors -- including one who gave $31.3 million last year.

Now, the secrecy surrounding the William J. Clinton Foundation has become a campaign issue as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination with her husband as a prime source of strategy and star power. Some of her rivals argue that donors could use presidential foundations to circumvent campaign finance laws intended to limit political influence.

[...]

As the scope of the foundation expanded from the Clinton library into issues like treating AIDS in the developing world and addressing global poverty and climate change, and Mrs. Clinton moved closer to announcing her candidacy, the pace of giving quickened. Last year [2006], contributions reached $135 million, a 70 percent increase over the previous year [2005]. Two-thirds came from just 11 donors.

The Times article also reported that "[a]s the foundation has evolved into global philanthropy, it has attracted more large donors." The Times went on to identify some of those "large donors," and noted that, in some cases, their donations were earmarked for specific initiatives:

As the foundation has evolved into global philanthropy, it has attracted more large donors. Among them are Tom Golisano, an iconoclastic billionaire from upstate New York, who gives the foundation $3 million to $5 million a year, according to Mr. Golisano's confidants; Stephen Bing, a Hollywood producer and a Hillraiser, who contributed stock worth $10,028,614 in 2005; Sir Tom Hunter, a Scottish businessman who began donating $10 million a year in 2006 for economic development in Africa; and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which said it had given or pledged $23,145,677 since 2005, mostly to support AIDS work and an effort to reduce the costs of malaria drugs.

Additionally, discussing Bill Clinton's statement that he would publicize future foundation donors if Hillary Clinton is elected president, the Post editorial claimed: "Bill Clinton may not be the only ex-president who's shielded his benefactors. But, as part of a husband-wife team seeking a return to the White House, even he acknowledges that there are legitimate 'questions about whether people would try to win favor with her by giving money to me.' " However, in quoting Clinton about "whether people would try to win favor" with his wife, the Post omitted the part of his statement in which he reportedly said: "You know it wouldn't work, and I don't think they would." As Media Matters for America previously noted, The New York Times article made a similar omission.

From the December 21 New York Post editorial:

But the former prez apparently doesn't want Americans to know who's behind all that cash.

He says he can't disclose their names because of confidentiality agreements.

Well, that just doesn't cut it: With his wife a sitting senator and a presidential candidate, the opportunities for influence-peddling are great.

Bill Clinton may not be the only ex-president who's shielded his benefactors. But, as part of a husband-wife team seeking a return to the White House, even he acknowledges that there are legitimate "questions about whether people would try to win favor with her by giving money to me."

With that in mind, The New York Times put together a list of 97 people who gave some $69 million toward the library before Bill Clinton left office.

It turns out that some were longtime Clinton friends. But others were folks who'd lobbied the administration for policy changes.

Still others were under investigation by the Clinton Justice Department.

Moreover, the paper's research showed, many of the foundation's donors have since been hit up for contributions to the Hillary for President campaign.

(That shouldn't surprise, of course: Terry McAuliffe, who headed the foundation's fundraising efforts, now chairs Hillary's campaign. Cheryl Mills, who sits on the foundation's board, is the campaign's general counsel. And Jay Carson, the foundation's former communications director, serves as the campaign's press secretary.)

Moreover, reports the Times, the foundation's donations are up 70 percent since Hillary's campaign got under way - with two-thirds of the money coming from just 11 donors.

For his part, the former president says he'll be happy to start naming names and amounts - but not until Hillary is elected.

Even then, he says, past donors will remain anonymous, "unless there is some conflict of which I am aware."

However, he insists, "there is none."

Pardon us if we don't simply take his word for it.