«
»

The Prostitute of Punditry, Ct’d…

Monday, August 18th, 2003

Matt Welch finds more dirt and deceit from Arianna.

Be sure to read the comments.

BTW, some of you asked if, despite her dearth of income tax pay, Arianna gave to charity — if she puts her money where her mouth is. From the LA Times:

Huffington’s tax form lists $46,763 in contributions to charity in 2002. Those were not deductible because she had no taxable income.

The contributions include payments to three prominent private schools on Los Angeles’ Westside รข?? the Archer School, Crossroads and New Roads. They also include payments of $6,675 to the Church of the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness and a related foundation.

The most obvious question, here — already posed by others — is how someone who regularly chides big business for seeking out tax loopholes can herself claim no taxable income, but still find $45,000 to hand over to swanky schools and New Age baloney.

Other news accounts report that the three schools and the CMSIA made up nearly all of Arianna’s charitable giving. The schools are private, posh, exclusive, and where Arianna’s kids happen to attend.

So I ask again: Arianna, where’s the love for the working man?

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

This entry was posted on Monday, August 18th, 2003 at 6:24 pm by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

7 Responses to “The Prostitute of Punditry, Ct’d…”

  1. #1 |  PJ Doland |  August 18th, 2003 at 6:51 pm

    That’s not “the most obvious question.”

    The most obvious question is WHAT THE HELL IS THE CHURCH OF THE MOVEMENT OF SPIRITUAL INNER AWARENESS?

    The writers at The Onion couldn’t come up with a better fake cult name if they tried.

  2. #2 |  eric |  August 18th, 2003 at 8:06 pm

    No.. the most obvious question is why the hell is it anyone’s business (least of all the gov’t) who this dingy babe gives her money to? and one more.. if our tax system is so dumb that she owes nothing, why should she take ANY heat for takiing advantage.

  3. #3 |  Glenn |  August 18th, 2003 at 8:14 pm

    Eric,

    It matters because it shows she is a hypocrite. It shows how she does the very thing she says she hates. I don’t blame her for taking advantage of the tax system. But she shouldn’t give us the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ routine.

  4. #4 |  Frank N |  August 19th, 2003 at 7:00 am

    Radley…

    You seem suprised…

  5. #5 |  Wallster |  August 19th, 2003 at 4:26 pm

    Glenn –
    One can be opposed to tax loopholes and still take advantage of them. If you want tax loopholes to be closed for everyone, including yourself, you should still be able to take advantage of the loophole as long as everyone else continues to use it. If you don’t, then you’re a sucker.

    Radley, one can easily give to charity when they don’t have any income, taxable or otherwise. Though I can’t find through the link how much tax-exempt income she had, even if she had zero she can still donate out of the assets she had at the beginning of the year, no?

    Why disparage her for donating when she has no income? It seems to me donating when you have no taxable income is more noble than actually being able to use the deduction. Of course, her choices of charity are certainly not the most needy.