Clintons' wealth skyrockets by 5,600 percent

Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 7:44 PM ET
Filed Under:

By Andrea Mitchell and the NBC News Investigative Unit

Hillary and Bill Clintons' wealth has skyrocketed to more than $20 million last year, a staggering 5,600 percent increase since President Clinton left the White House, according to their newly released tax records.

In Clinton’s last full year in office, 2000, he and Mrs. Clinton earned $357,026. Last year, their estimated total income was $20.4 million. That is an increase of more than 5,600 percent.

Most of the Clintons’ newfound wealth comes from lucrative speeches and books. In the seven years since the Clintons left the White House, President Clinton has earned $51.8 million in speeches around the globe. The president’s book royalties total $29.5 million for that same period, and Senator Clinton’s book payments total $10.4 million, the Clinton campaign reported today.

It’s a remarkable turnaround for a couple that faced $12 million in legal fees when they left the White House, in the wake of the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals. Since that time, the new records show, the Clintons have raked in more than $109 million in total gross income--and made charitable contributions of more than $10 million.

Much of the Clintons’ earnings -- $15 million in total -- come from President Clinton’s partnership with his friend, supermarket magnate Ron Burkle, and his Yucaipa companies. Burkle and his firms invested heavily in Dubai, despite Hillary Clinton’s criticism of a deal to grant Dubai ownership of several prominent American ports. Tonight the Clinton campaign said: “As has been previously reported, President Clinton is a partner in the Yucaipa Global Partnership Fund, an international private equity investment fund investing in private international companies.  It seeks international investors and several of the companies in which it has invested are on Senator Clinton's financial disclosure forms that were filed in 2007.”

The Clinton campaign today also revealed that President Clinton earned a total of $2.9 million from a compensation agreement with InfoUSA, an Omaha-based data processing and marketing firm run by Vinod Gupta. The deal created controversy when it was reported that InfoUSA sold data lists to a third party that were used by fraudulent telemarketers.

Several of the older tax returns are signed and dated on the same day. For example, the Clintons’ 2004 and 2005 returns are both signed on October 14, 2007. Today, the campaign explained that several of the tax returns released today were amended, and thus were signed at later dates. Sen. Clinton’s staff blamed the couple’s tax preparers for making several errors.

A campaign spokesman said: “The Clintons amended their returns in 2003, 2004, and 2005. In 2003 the Clintons amended their return because they received a Form 1099-INT after the April 15, 2004 due date of their 2003 income tax returns. In 2004 the Clintons had to amend their filings twice.  The first amended return was based on an amended letter from the Blind Trust received after the original return was filed.  The second amended return was based on a clerical error that was discovered after the returns were filed.  There was a math error in the original return regarding deductions, and when a new tax preparer came on board, he discovered the error and amended the return to correct it.  In 2005 the Clintons had to amend their return because certain deductions were omitted from Schedule C because of a clerical error on the part of the Clintons' accountant.  When a new tax preparer came on board, he discovered the error and amended the return to correct it.”

NBC News showed the tax returns to Tom Ochsenschlager, the Vice President of Taxation at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. He has been a CPA for three decades, and said all the amended returns and CPA errors stood out. “That’s unusual,” Ochsenschlager said.

In general, Ochsenschlager said the Clinton’s tax returns showed a “pretty conservative” approach. “I didn’t see anything that really raised my eyebrows,” he said. “They didn’t really take advantage of a lot of things they could have.”

One return that did catch Ochsenschlager’s eye was for the tax year 2003, when the Clintons took a hefty deduction for the business use of their home offices. President Clinton claimed $94,551 in expenses for cleaning and maintenance of his home office that year, and his wife claimed $52,889 for hers. The Clintons each got a tax deduction of about 10 percent of those amounts, Ochsenschlager said. “It seems very high. That’s one area where they may have been very aggressive,” the CPA added.

--With reporting assistance from Jim Popkin, Doug Adams, Rich Gardella, Aram Roston and Adam Verdugo.

Comments

I am glad to see that the Clintons have done well after the Repubicans tried to crush them.  Now can we get back to real news MSNBC...  Can you stop trying to make news regarding Clinton and Obama and start investigating issues so the pubic can make wise choices!  Do you even have an investigative team?
I am glad to see that the Clintons have done well after the Repubicans tried to crush them.  Now can we get back to real news MSNBC...  Can you stop trying to make news regarding Clinton and Obama and start investigating issues so the pubic can make wise choices!  Do you even have an investigative team?
Practically every other reputable news outlet reported what was obvious.  MOST of the Clintons wealth was accrued by speaking engagements and the three books Hillary and Bill Clinton authored.  MSNBC did not mention the fact the Clintons took relatively few deductions, and donated almost 11 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity.  I rarely visit this site, and this kind of reporting, designed to imply dishonesty, is why.  I find it disgusting. Unless you start billing yourselves as an opinion network, stick to the facts, not speculation.
Who's paying Bill Clinton speaking fees, 51 million dollars? Tax payers need to make sure there is no influence peddling. In the spirit of full disclosure, may I suggets to the Clintons to list where the speaking fees come from?
Today's Wall Street Journal reports that Clinton consultant Mark Penn is shilling for a free trade agreement with Colombia that Hillary says she opposes.

As can be seen from the Clintons' tax returns, those friendly people in Dubai give millions to Bill Clinton while Hillary claims she opposes Dubai ownership of American seaports on national security grounds.

Marc Rich, the fugitive international financier and union buster, was pardoned by Bill Clinton, who enjoyed a social relationship with Rich's wealthy wife.

Hillary's brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, also profited from dubious presidential pardons offered by the would-be First Filanderer.

Tony Rodham helped gain a presidential pardon for a Tennessee couple convicted of bank fraud.

Hugh Rodham pocketed $400,000 in legal fees after two of his clients were granted last-minute pardons. One, Carlos Vignali Jr., was convicted for transporting 800 pounds of cocaine; and his pardon was granted against the wishes of the Justice Department.

The list goes on and on ...

One of the best compilations was done by the very reputable Stuart Taylor of the National Journal, who asked:

"Hillary Rodham Clinton is supposed to be smart. But how smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?)" ...

Christopher Hitchens, the ubiquitous conscience of the Fourth Estate, is right.

Hillary's "offenses to veracity and decency rival," he said, "if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor."

Parents, can anyone in their right mind think this pair of co-dependent "grifters"--the word Jimmy Carter's chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, used to define them--is a good role model for today's children?

Personal responsibility is the key to government accountability.

Just today, Hillary is blaming "the boys" for her tanking campaign ...

Forget the pharonic and wasteful spending by her campaign, the vicious infighting among her key advisors, race-gate, the made-for-Hollywood portrayal of Full-Metal-Jacket St. Hillary of Bosnia, etc., etc., etc.

When Hillary is losing, it is always because she is the victim of dark and sinister forces.

Except that these are an ever changing cast of characters (witness her making nice-nice last week with the man who in the 1990s she claimed headed the "vast rightwing conspiracy"--Pennsylvania mogul Mellon Scaife).

If you begin to add up the list of all those Hillary has blamed at one point or another for her being unable to realize her agenda or her ambitions you come up with at least the beginnings of an interesting profile ...

It is of the American people themselves.
We the Americans are loosing our job,home etc. The political leaders are making 5600 0\0. That is why some thing stink. The Iraq war is a busness not only for VP Chaney but also The Clinton`s. We need real change. Barak Obama.
SO WHAT IF THEY MADE ALOT OF MONEY,THE CLINTONS ARE GREAT PEOPLE. AMERICA NEEDS TO GROW-UP
AND STOP ALL THIS GOSSIP
Yeah so what ? Book deals and speeches and some investments. We should be so lucky to have a president who made their own money and not from some rich daddy setting them up.
The Clinton's gave over 10 percent to charity.  They made money on their experience and who they were.  No one says anything negative when Tiger Woods makes that kind of money selling Nike.  Or if A-Rod makes more money in one year than another who MLB team.  No, it is because it is Hillary Clinton - she's white, she's a woman, and she's tough.  If it were anyone else, it would be okay.  The media does anything they can to bring Hillary Clinton down, and she's the only one with the econonic plan and know-how to turn things around.  Obama has only been in the Senate for 3 years, and in that time he's only voted slightly more than 50% of the time, which is a rotten, lazy voting record if you ask me.  And people want him for President, why?  So, he can be in power and basically do nothing - another George W. Bush.  But, Hillary?  If she's in there, she's going to kick some deficit rear-end.  The Clinton's did it before - they'll do it again!
they've been dirty for a long time...
back door deals and nothing but lies and covering the truth, whatever....
common-place for politicians, Republican, or Democrat.
Sounds like they need to release the UNAMMENDED returns
My God!!!! ... Everyone wants to GET the Clintons'. No matter what they do, everyone is in their case, especially the MSNBC. Obama is turning every stone to get dirt on the Clintons' - too bad for the Obama camp, because the Clintons' are a step ahead of them. And by the way, if Clinton is not nominated, the Republicans will celebrate their early victory right after the Democratic Convention. America is not ready for a "empty suit" President like Obama. You can quote me on that!!!
Who cares!! Big deal!!  The media has benn very bias from day one.  The OBAMA network (MSNBC) & probably CNN are the ones who would be interested in this kind of stuff for their story because they can't say anything positive about Hillary anyways.  Tax returns don't factor into how voters will vote only the media & OBAMA are interested in such petty stuff!!!
Lynn, NJ
"The first amended return was based on an amended letter from the Blind Trust received after the original return was filed"

The Blind Trust! Perhaps Vince Foster will haunt the Clinton's from the grave.
Would the average citizen be granted this much latitude when filing returns ,seems doubtful.
Seems unreasonable to allow so many errors.
Three tax returns filed the same day ,
sounds like a scam or is that the sound of experience ?
I suspect that some of this has been lubricated by Mark Rich.  I don't think that his pardon was free.
This is deep BS. I think MSNBC has drank too much Obama kool aid. There are hundreds of sports stars and movie stars and "celebrities" that you in the media "create" that are suddenly rich and haven't done 1% of what the Clintons have done and you hippocrites do everything you can to INFER they are somehow bad people. I am 60 years old and I DO remember when NBC was better than the media rag you now are. By the way, have you analyzed Obama's tax returns for the last 6 or 7 years; does your "expert" accountant find he was too or too little aggressive on his return? How about some speculation on his real estate deals?
MAN THATS ALOT OF CASH!! GOOD FOR THEM AND THEY GAVE 10% TO CHARITY!!
of course u dont, your just another sleeping dreamer. Yes, yes lets have all our presidential candidates travel not the 50 states, but the globe, vieing to not american special interest groups, but foreign ones, for campaign donations. I dont know about you, but I may well just miss the old days then, when we knew who was buying our Political Parties out...
Anyone who can lie like he did should never be trusted ,they are yesterdays news and he was impeached ,who in their right mind would elect this shonky couple?? now remember i did not have sexual relations with that woman!!CIGAR ANYONE ???
you can tell from the headline - obvious bias. What's with the emphasis on 5600%. Have you seen how much the CEO's in Wall Street earn despite the market?
In applying for jobs, we provide our resume. In applying for government jobs, we provide an extensive application for background check.

In applying for the job of President, we should review resume, background check, Tax records, and there should be physical and mental testing to comply with. I am of the belief we have not checked our leaders enough in the past. Lie detector testing might even be in order...
The maintenance on there Home office for one year is more than my whole house.  I cant understand why they even bothered with deductions at all since the unfair tax cuts for the Rich was enacted and in force for the tax years mentioned in this story.  If they are so against them why did they still try to profit from them
According to Ben Smith of Politico, the summary does not account for $18 million in income. Any ideas why?
Exactly. This is Obama propaganda entirely. Who cares? Now if you're going to report on where Obama is getting all his money from, maybe you can make it fair! And STILL Obama outspends someone whose income increased 5600%!!! If we're going to talk about whose got the money, Let's get it right here!
I care because the trade deals Pres. Clinton made with China almost destroyed my familys business. We started getting calls from costumers asking if we could match prices from Chinese manufactures. The Chinese could SHIP parts for less than we could buy RAW material.

Clinton SOLD THIS COUNTRY OUT.      
Seems funny that the Clintons are under fire.  How about looking in to the REAL money the Bushs are making on all this oil.  I am sure it will make the Clintons look like paupers.
I couldn't agree more.  GW Bush on the other hand (scratching my chin).  The financial dealings of his family are shady.  Funny how the Bush family finances, among other topics, don't get written about very much.
Nothing is illegal or unacceptable the way the Clintons have made money. Others in the race now are going to make 10 times this when they get out of office. I would like to do business favours, deals to help my favourite former president in a legal and acceptable way.
Who cares how much they made and why? Since when is it frowned upon for people to be wealthy? Most people wish they could have made that much and it's a sad fact that in this country where so many people tout the "American Dream", that when someone actually makes money people say they are out of touch and sellouts. Im glad Obama likes to tout his "rags to riches" crap. He still makes more than most people who will vote for him. He needs to focus on something other than race and how much his opponents make
Ah Andrea, you are operating with the same misconception that is shared by a vast swath of the American population. That is to equate income with wealth. President & Mrs. Clinton's income increased 5,600%. Their wealth is sum of their assets minus their liabilities. Are they spenders, savers, and/or investors? Their cumulative income was $109 million for 2001 to 2007. Their wealth may be somewhere between $2 million or $109 million. It takes a both frugal and savvy investor to have their wealth equal their cumulative income. My wealth exceeds my cumulative income by 38%.
yeah right, they can really empathize with the average American. Their office cleaning people make more than most educators in this country! It's all about the $$ and power for them.
The key question that by and large remains unanswered is where the money is coming from, not how it has been spent as HC's campaign would like to spin it. The Clinton's wealth does not stem from the Clinton's financial skills but from his/her public office and that raises serious questions: why can the wealth of a politically astute former president increase by 5600 percent while our war veterans who have given as individuals far more for the service of the country do not derive any financial advantage of their services to the country? Isn't it outrageous that the Clintons who were deeply involved in sexual and financial scandals in the course of their public office can derive financial benefits that are unattainable by the true heroes of our nation? Why are we accepting such a distortion of our core values? The answer: a political system that has become corrupt and contrary to what this country is all about. The Clintons, their wealth, their lies, their use of political rents derived from presidential pardons the last day of Bill's presidency illustrate such corruption. Such corruption will stain the Democratic Party. The party must give real changes and decency a chance if it does not want to lose it to the republicans in November, and more importantly, if it wants to capitalize on the vote of our youth which Barack Obama has so wonderfully inspired and motivated. The question is not whether we can change; it is that we must change. A Clinton dynasty is unamerican. Obama must be our nominee.
It is amazing to see that such wealthy people are still working so hard everyday... to gain more power and even more money... to pay more taxes and spend more on charity... aren't they tired? Why won't they allow younger people continue their work...?
Apparently, you will not post remarks critical of your biased report. So, it appears you are doing EXACTLY what you have been critical of from the Bush camp. Your bias is truly disgusting.
Mrs Clinton has been telling blue collar workers all along, that she can relate to them, because she's "middle class"... How many of you middle class Americans make $42,000.00 ... per day?
Let's scrape the bottom of the barrel some more folks and see if we can find some other things that were completely outside of their control to blame them for!  This all supports Hillary's claim that she has been vetted and raked over the coals for enough years that there aren't many significant surprises left.  Once Obama has been out there for as many years as they have been, IF MSNBC actually cares to run a "Deep Background" on him as well, there will be these same kinds of inconsistencies, none of which will be any more significant.  The difference?  The truly BIG things that are in the Senator from Illinois' closet that might come tumbling out at the worst possible moment and hand the election to McCain.

Thanks MSNBC for focusing on the REALLY important stuff, when it matters MOST!!!
So much for relating to the poor, blue collar working class--I don't think either Clinton can "feel their pain".
GLAD TO HEAR IT.  WISH IT WERE MORE.  THEY'RE VERY DESERVING PEOPLE.  HAVE DONE MORE FOR THE COMMON MAN THAN CAN EVER BE REPAID.  IT WOULD BE NICE IF OBAMA COULD LEARN FROM THEM.
I guess you'll be staying up to 3 am every night until you (media) find something negative to report.  Hooray for their rise in income, they've given years of service to this country.  Get over it!
Clinton used his position to entice foreign governments and businesses to hire him to give speeches and advices under the premises that he could help them influence the politics and trade relations and to get businesses.  It's call influence peddling. I doubt they get their money worth. I wouldn't pay a dime to hear him.  You know he is lying when his lips move.
Fine upstanding Democrats.
Check out the Dubai connection.  And Bills speaking fees are suspect - Look into specific speaking engagements and who has been paying him to "speak"  Clintons Big corporate and Middle East Oil influence brokers.

How ironic that while Hillary voices her criticism of the Bush tax cuts she has benefited most from them – tax cuts that have transferred more wealth to the richest one percent of the population than any fiscal policies in history.

“After President Bush's tax cuts of 2002, the couple's tax burden, as a percentage of overall income, dropped from about 37 percent in 2001, settling to about 30 percent during the tax years 2003 to 2006.”

It’s good to know that Hillary and Bill are part of the richest one percent of Americans who currently earn about 17 percent of the national income and own about 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.

It’s good to know that the Clinton’s have reaped the benefits from the pro-corporate neoliberal economic polices enacted by Bill Clinton.  Policies that have helped make the US the wealthiest nation on earth with the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.

Yes Hillary you are absolutely correct… lobbyists “represent real Americans.”

They represent YOU…the RICHEST ONE PERCENT and CEO’s of American multinational corporations – whose salaries rose 14 percent, making the average take-home pay more than 13 million.  That’s more than eight-five times the pay of the average hourly worker.

So much for being the champion of the blue collar working class.
The Clintons should not describe themselves as voice of blue collar working class and use it to gain more greedy political money and power.
The article states that the Clinton's "wealth" grew to $20 million.  What you meant was that their "income" last year was $20 million.  Those are two fundamentally different concepts.  Their wealth could be more or less dependng on how much of that income they spend.  Given that they made over 100 million in the last few years, I would guess that their wealth is much more than $20 million.
Shame on you, it is ok for the V.P. of this country to make money on oil, and God knows what else relevant to his title, get a slap on the hand, and than take the former President and First Lady who, at least enhanced the United States reputation for a literate, intelligent,and progressive nation with sound financial stability and berate. What moxie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd like to see Pres Bush (41)'s post-presidency earnings for comparison. He's made millions on giving speeches as well. If the Republican Congress hadn't demonized Pres Clinton so much he wouldn't be making as much money on his speeches. They have Gingrich to thank for some of their income.
The Clintons tax records prove that they work hard and are very smart in making money.  She will be a GREAT President & if she can overcome the Media, She has REAL GRIT!  YOU (Media) can't "kill" her campaign OR her FAME! Fox News treat her better than MSNBC & CNN, I'm sick of you.  Linda, Flatwoods, KY
I wonder how much fundraising money for Mrs. Clinton is coming from Colombia…let's check!! Where is a Penn when you need one?


Send a comment

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

About the blog

Deep Background is NBC News’ investigative blog. It covers national security, terrorism, spies, Iraq, and politics, as well as government waste, fraud and abuse. It is edited by NBC News Senior Investigative Producer Jim Popkin.

Archives


Browse by topic:

Add this blog to your news reader