The Conservative Media Figures Who Donated To The Clinton Foundation

Key Fox Executives, Bush Family, “#1 Conservative Site,” And Major Conservative Funders Have Supported “Widely Respected” Global Charity.

Media are falsely equating donations to the Clinton Foundation with contributions to a Democratic political campaign. That comparison ignores that the foundation is expressly nonpartisan, and numerous Republicans and conservative media figures have supported the foundation’s work.

The Clinton Foundation states that it builds “partnerships between businesses, NGOs, governments, and individuals everywhere” on “improving global health, increasing opportunity for women and girls, reducing childhood obesity and preventable diseases, creating economic opportunity and growth, or helping communities address the effects of climate change.”

The foundation is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, which means it is “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

Recent media coverage of the controversies, however, has falsely morphed the Clinton Foundation from a “widely respected” charity into a supposed-extension of the Democratic Party.

For example, Paul Waldman, an American Prospect senior writer and former Media Matters senior fellow, criticized Politico reporter Dylan Byers for drawing a misleading “parallel between donating to a candidate’s campaign and donating to a charitable foundation run by an ex-president.”

Other media figures have similarly made the false political campaign comparison. Fox News host Gretchen Carlson, Breitbart.com, National Review Online, and HotAir.com, all suggested a donation to the foundation was equivalent to financing Democratic candidates.

As Waldman explained at The Washington Post, “it’s notable that everyone is now treating the Clinton Foundation as if it has long been central to sort of scheme to personally benefit the Clintons, and not a charitable foundation.” He added that “judging by the way the foundation is now talked about — as if anyone who has had any association with it is tainted — you’d think it was running a network of international assassins instead of distributing malaria medication.”

More From Media Matters: