So? It's not like she's taking it out to buy herself houses and cars? At most, I think you could make a case that she's used the profile of the charity to boost her political career. If that's the case, and the charity gets income that it spends on worthy causes and she gets clout, well that's not the best outcome, but it's sure far from the worst.
> 2. charity or "charity"? - valid question, given large percentage of its income is spent on overhead
I'm fairly sure this has been thoroughly debunked. The amount of income to that charity that goes to overhead is average by all accounts I've seen that are reputable[1]. I've looked, because this has come up before. If you have a source that says otherwise that is not some random blog that references some other random blog[2], I would be happy to read it.
2: I'm way too tired of debunking what people consider a valid source once they've decided that all the mainstream media is biased and untrustworthy. It's hard to tell whether in some cases the errors are due to incompetence, negligence or with purpose. Undoubtedly a useful feature to some.
I realise it's probably too late to correct facts, and it doesn't seem to matter much anyway, but a large percentage of the charity donations did not go on overhead. They operation was very highly rated by charity watchdogs.
The soundbite you often hear is about X% spent on salaries and only Y% donated to charity. Which is true, but misleading because the Foundation actually pays people to administer medicine. It's not the type of charity that just hands the money to other groups.
How do you figure 2. ? The foundation's 990 and audited financials[1] show ~90% of FY2104 revenues ($217mm) going to program services, with the majority of that ($143mm) going to provide healthcare overseas via [2], and the rest disbursed over a collection of other programs.
1. money given to her charity
2. charity or "charity"? - valid question, given large percentage of its income is spent on overhead