logo
book Subscribe to our Magazine
    • Magazine
    • Membership
    • Donate
  • Racial Justice
  • Economic Justice
  • Climate Justice
  • Health Justice
  • Leadership
    • Grassroots Fundraising Journal
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Podcasts
    • Tiny Spark
    • Women of Color in Power
  • Webinars
    • Free Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Membership

NY Attorney General Sues Trump and Family for Flagrant Misuse of Charity

Ruth McCambridge
June 15, 2018
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA 3.0], from Wikimedia Commons

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has now left the building, but among the ongoing initiatives being advanced by his office and successor, current NY AG Barbara Underwood, is the holding to account of the Donald J. Trump Foundation and its trustees, which include the president himself along with three of his children—Ivanka, Donald Jr., and Eric—who sat on the foundation’s board, a body that last met  in 1999.

In a lawsuit that comes after a twenty-month investigation, Underwood cites many examples of “improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations.” As readers may recall, the NYAG had previously ordered the foundation to cease any fundraising in New York.

“Mr. Trump used charitable assets to pay off the legal obligations of entities he controlled, to promote Trump hotels, to purchase personal items and to support his presidential election campaign,” Underwood writes.

Underwood’s office is seeking to have Foundation dissolved with the remainder of its $1 million in assets being distributed to charity, that its trustees be enjoined from overseeing any other charity in the state, and that the foundation pay $2.8 million in restitution and penalties—approximately the amount which the Trump Foundation distributed to veterans’ groups in what the suit calls a related party transaction.

What this refers to, of course, is the fundraiser that that Trump decided to throw for veterans’ groups in early January 2016. Trump claimed at the time that $6 million had been raised, but only a little more than $2.8 million went into his foundation, with the rest being contributed by donors more directly. (NPQ reported on the experience of Liberty House, one such organization.) Trump then integrated the awarding of checks into his campaign almost completely. It is this use of the foundation as a campaign tool that the suit spends the most time documenting, providing a detailed peek into the lack of boundaries between the campaign and foundation, with campaign staff apparently not only deciding who was to get the money but at what political events the presentation of checks would occur. According to the suit, Trump himself said the following at a rally on February 1, 2016:

In lieu of the [Republican presidential primary] debate, I said let’s have a rally for the veterans….At that rally, we raised in one hour six million dollars…. So what we did, we raised this money, and we are giving it out, and we just gave out a check for a hundred thousand dollars a little while ago, and we are giving out another check, and they can bring it up and we are going to deliver it right here….We have so many of these checks. They are all over the place. We are giving them out. This was in lieu, and, by the way, the poll numbers just came down from New Hampshire, I went through the roof. I think they respect the fact that I, that we stand up for our rights….So, congratulations to Mulberry Street.

Thus, not only did Trump freely mix the affairs of his charity and the campaign, he did so quite openly. Did he not know this was disallowed, or did he just not much care?

The suit charges that Trump was clearly aware, asserts the suit, of the prohibitions on his foundation’s involvement in campaign and partisan political activities.

Mr. Trump’s wrongful use of the Foundation to benefit his Campaign was willful and knowing. Mr. Trump was aware of the prohibition on political activities and the requirement of restrictions on related party transactions. Among other things, he repeatedly signed, under penalties of perjury, IRS Forms 990 in which he attested that the Foundation did not engage in transactions with interested parties, and that the Foundation did not carry out political activity.

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Mr. Trump also signed, again under penalty of perjury, the Foundation’s Certificate of Incorporation, in which he certified that the Foundation would not use its assets for the benefit of its directors or officers and that it would not intervene in “any political campaign on behalf of any candidate.”

In addition, in February 2016, while on the campaign trail, Mr. Trump spoke out against the prohibition on charities participating in political campaigns. Mr. Trump was again alerted to the prohibition on political activity no later than March 22, 2016, the date that the initial public reporting of the Foundation’s unlawful donation to the political committee for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. The very next day, the Foundation filed an IRS Form signed by Mr. Trump, disclosing the “And Justice for All” transaction detailed below, and Mr. Trump paid federal excise tax for making an impermissible political expenditure and reimbursed the Foundation for that expenditure.

But the suit also faults the trustees for a lack of care in just about every aspect of the foundation, from observing prohibitions against self-inurement to a lack of any investment policy. The charity was used to settle legal disputes and to pay debt among other things. Essentially, asserts the AG, the foundation was just a private checkbook for the candidate filled with other people’s money.

The suit does not focus only on the chaos of the veteran’s charity scandal, covered extensively at the time by NPQ (see here and here), citing also the $25,000 contribution to Pam Bondi’s campaign for Florida attorney general (the contribution he claimed was a kind of clerical error) and many other questionable uses of the charity with campaign and business employees, as well as friends and family cast as unquestioning sidekicks. As David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post reports in one distressing revelation:

A New York state investigator asked Allen Weisselberg who was listed as treasurer of the Trump Foundation—whether the foundation had a policy for determining which specific payments it was allowed to make.

“There’s no policy, just so you understand,” Weisselberg said.

The interviewer asked whether Weisselberg had understood that he was actually on the board of the Trump Foundation and had been for more than a decade.

“I did not,” he replied.”

The Attorney General’s office has also “referred its findings and concerns to the Federal Election Commission, the US Department of Justice, and the IRS for their review and possible action.” Meanwhile, Trump has tweeted, “I won’t settle this case!” Of course, Trump has settled a number of other actions related to his misuse of the foundation.

Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ruth McCambridge

Ruth is Editor Emerita of the Nonprofit Quarterly. Her background includes forty-five years of experience in nonprofits, primarily in organizations that mix grassroots community work with policy change. Beginning in the mid-1980s, Ruth spent a decade at the Boston Foundation, developing and implementing capacity building programs and advocating for grantmaking attention to constituent involvement.

More about: Donald TrumpPhilanthropyPolicy

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

Join Today
logo logo logo logo logo
See comments

NPQ_Spring_2022

You might also like
What Is the Nonprofit Sector of a Future, Equitable World?
Devon Kearney
New Data Tells Us Where Donor-Advised Fund Dollars Go—And Don’t Go
Chuck Collins and Helen Flannery
Report Maps the Philanthropy of Millionaire Donors of Color
Steve Dubb
One Nation Under a Groove: How to Build a Black Future Through Strong, Black-Led Community Organizations
Shawn A. Ginwright
This is What Solidarity Looks Like: Global Racial Justice in Antiwar Organizing
Kitana Ananda
Making Federal Infrastructure Funding Equitable—What Philanthropy Can Do
Lois DeBacker and Joe Evans

Upcoming Webinars

Group Created with Sketch.
June 9th, 2 pm ET

Remaking the Economy

Wage Justice, Now!

Register
You might also like
What Is the Nonprofit Sector of a Future, Equitable World?
Devon Kearney
New Data Tells Us Where Donor-Advised Fund Dollars Go—And...
Chuck Collins and Helen Flannery
Report Maps the Philanthropy of Millionaire Donors of Color
Steve Dubb
WOMEN OF COLOR IN POWER
Women of Color in Power

Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

Subscribe
Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Authentic Leadership
Reclaiming Interrupted Lineages

Like what you see?

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Independent & in your mailbox.

Subscribe today and get a full year of NPQ for just $59.

subscribe
  • About
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • Advertisers
  • Newsletters
  • Copyright

Subscribe to View Webinars

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.