Letter to the Editor

Is there confusion here? Just the facts please.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

There seems to be some confusion in politics these days. Often it’s caused by not looking at all the facts. In a recent letter, the author thought that a reference to “super rich” should describe Hillary Clinton rather than President Trump because she raised more campaign money than he did. The Clintons are well off, but speaking of his personal wealth, President Trump, stating that he is very, very rich surely has the edge here.

Be that as it may, President Trump stated early in his campaign that he would self-fund it. That, naturally, took the pressure off for his deep pocket contributors for sending big bucks to his campaign. He even promised to spend $100 million of his own money for the effort. He later stated that he could not “self-fund” it by himself and asked for outside contributions. He also missed his own $100 million promise and actually kicked in just $66 million – about a $34 million shortfall. Looking at the facts, it’s not surprising President Trump came up lacking in funding.

He then mentions the Clinton Foundation using funds for the Clinton lifestyle. I wonder if he is aware of charity-rating organizations. Charity Navigator, the largest of the rating organizations gives The Clinton Foundation four stars out of four, their highest rating. Another ranker, Charity Watch gives them an “A” ranking, which happens to be just higher than the Red Cross. President Daniel Borochoff lists it as “top tier” in the philanthropy world. Compare that to the Trump Foundation which was proven to practice “self dealing” by using Foundation funds of $258,000 to pay for Trump's personal legal problems, $5,000 for advertising Trump's hotels, $10,000 for a portrait of himself, and $100,000 political contribution to Citizens United, the Koch brothers PAC. It doesn’t sound very charitable to me. And then there’s the $25 million Trump paid to settle the Trump University fraud scandal. Wow!

Finally, he says that I erroneously stated that “the constitution could be changed by a vote of two thirds of the states.” I actually stated “a constitutional amendment ratified by two-thirds of the states.” It should be common knowledge that a constitutional amendment is a congressional bill, not subject to presidential action, that must be passed by two-thirds margin in both the Senate and the House and then additionally ratified by two-thirds of the states. Again, let’s look at the facts.

Robert Sneitzer

Spirit Lake