Jane Fonda’s Charitable Foundation Has Sat On Its Money, Not Donating A Penny To Any Charity In Last 7 Years

December 14, 2013
Two-time Oscar-winning actress, political activist and philanthropist Jane Fonda came under fire Thursday after it was revealed that her Jane Fonda Foundation hasn’t made a single charitable donation in the past five years, even though it’s worth almost $800,000. 

According to federal tax filings obtained by FOX411 and first published on The Smoking Gun, the Atlanta-based organization – of which Fonda is listed as president and chairman of the board, but receives no monetary compensation – was founded in 2004 and spent its first two years giving away large sums of money. But its gift of giving has dramatically dwindled since.

In 2004, Fonda’s foundation donated $300,000 to the Emory University School of Medicine and $150,000 to the Henry W. Grady Foundation. In 2005 it gave $500,000 to the Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention.

But in 2006 it handed out only $1,000 to the Atlanta Obstetric and Gynecology Society, and from 2007 through to 2011, it distributed zero funds. 

It was initially suggested that Fonda’s foundation could be violating IRS regulations, which requires that private foundations make annual distributions of at least 5 percent of their assets to prohibit them from stockpiling and investing funds. But Barry Hirsch, a legal representative for Fonda, insisted that IRS requirements have been met and the charity is in full compliance with all codes. Hirsch said that, by law, over-contributions in earlier years – in this case 2004 and 2005 – can be carried over for up to five years and be covered as the “5 percent rule.”

But Andrew Morton, partner and chair of the sports and entertainment law group Handler Thayer, LLP, which works with numerous non-profits, said something still doesn’t sit quite right.

“He is correct that under certain circumstances IRS permits the carryover of ‘excess distributions’ for up to five subsequent tax years. How exactly would excess contributions during 2004 and 2005 explain the failure to make minimum required distributions during 2011? That justification would have expired in 2010,” he said.

When questioned further, Fonda’s representatives told us that an oversight was made in the 2011 tax return, and that a donation was made – although it was erroneously declared on Fonda’s personal tax return and not on the Foundation’s. We’re told that the oversight was discovered in 2012 and the person responsible for the mistake was “let go.” Hirsch assured us that all finances were resurrected in 2013 and that they remain in complete compliance with the law.

But there are still some uncertainties. According to Morton, any excess distributions carryover should be disclosed under Part X III of the Form 900-PF federal tax return. Fonda’s private foundation return for 2011 does not report any carryover that applies against the stated distributable amount of $38,922. 

“So it appears that, at best, her organization has filed an inaccurate return. Otherwise, the organization may have subjected itself to penalties,” Morton said.

Hirsch declined to comment on these specifics.

So why two years of giving big chunks of change, and almost nothing thereafter?

According to a source closely connected to the 75-year-old actress, Fonda met all necessary IRS regulations in the first two years of her foundation’s existence and has spent the last several years consistently digging deep into her own pockets instead. 

“Jane donates significant sums of her personal money to different charities and organizations all the time,” the source told FOX411, adding that Fonda returned to active donations through the 2013 fiscal year. “Her generosity goes above and beyond.”

LooktotheStars.org, which documents the charities celebrities support, lists Fonda as having lent her support to numerous organizations, including the Elton John AIDS Foundation, the Alzheimer’s Association, Peace Over Violence and Heifer International.

Also registered to the same Atlanta address as Fonda’s office is the Fonda Family Foundation, of which the actress is listed as president and chairman although it is registered as a separate organization. The Fonda Family Foundation has been an active philanthropy through the 2000s, giving significant sums to various organizations including Emory University and Captain Planet Foundation. 

But critics say the lack of donations from her own foundation for several consecutive years still reflects poorly, regardless of its supposedly compliant IRS standing. Jane Fonda Foundation Inc. has a listed purpose of benefiting “educational institutions and related activities.”

John Conway, entertainment attorney and CEO of Astonish Media Group, said: “This sort of publicity is never good for any celebrity, when their charity foundation appears stingy at best.”

Hollywood against Israel

April 13, 2012

(For Zion)Next time Habima Theater will be overcrowded by Israelis running for an underground bomb shelter, our horrible celebrities will remain silent, enjoying the prime time Jewish bloodbath. In Israel, no Hollywood happy ending is allowed. There are only images of hatred and the soundtrack of anti-Semitism.(Details)

When you make sex political, you shouldn’t be shocked to be called a #CUNT

March 14, 2012

Media_httpwwwretrosel_oijdf ( Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem Call for Government Suppression of Rush Limbaugh’s Radio Broadcasts) This isn’t political. While we disagree with Limbaugh’s politics, what’s at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he’s really “doing humor” or “entertainment.” He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people’s airways.

(Eugene Volokh) Of course it is “political” — they’re urging the government to suppress Limbaugh’s speech based on the ideology that it expresses. And this is precisely what the Supreme Court has rightly said is impermissible. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), the Court did uphold restrictions on vulgar words on the radio — a question that’s now being reconsidered by the Court, in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. — but in the process the plurality said:

[I]f it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.

Justice Brennan’s dissent, joined by Justice Marshall, would have been even more speech-protective; and none of the other concurring or dissenting justices cast any doubt on the plurality’s judgment, which indeed represents a basic First Amendment principle — the government may not suppress speech based on its viewpoint, even if the speech is seen as using “government resource[s]” (see, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector (1995)). That is something that applies to all viewpoints, whether feminist or sexist, pro-American or anti-American, or whatever else.
Likewise, FCC v. League of Women Voters (1984) held that even broadcast regulation must be closely scrutinized to prevent, at least, viewpoint discrimination and often even viewpoint-neutral content discrimination:

Since, as we [have] observed …, “[t]he First Amendment’s hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions on particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic,” we must be particularly wary in assessing § 399 to determine whether it reflects an impermissible attempt “to allow a government [to] control … the search for political truth.”

And that’s exactly the control that Fonda, Steinem, and Morgan want the government to exercise.


Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem and Feminists attempt to censor like usual.

March 12, 2012

(Red State) Gloria Steinem pens with three other feminists wrote an opinion piece at CNN calling for the FCC to take Rush Limbaugh off the airways. Her ‘writing’ partners, were Jane Fonda and Robin Morgan an editor at Ms. magazine. The trio open with quotes they didn’t bother to source.

(Daily Caller) The co-founders of The Women’s Media Center put pen to paper over the weekend to request that the public complain and urge the Federal Communications Commission to revoke the licenses of stations that carry “The Rush Limbaugh Show.”. Especially offensive, they wrote, has been the fact that his go-to term for feminists, “femi-nazis,” is no longer enough to “raise eyebrows anymore.”

but apparently it is ok for the feminists to call Rush a Nazi?

(Red State) This is followed by the pièce de résistance of the op-ed — they equate Rush with Josef Goebbels. No, for reals. While fascistically demanding that The State’s FCC shut down Rush Limbaugh. While seeking to silence those with whom they disagree – using hysterical lies and propagandist rhetoric – they Godwin themselves with Goebbels. Irony is lost on these geniuses.

The three then exhibit a staggering lack of self-awareness by claiming that Rush Limbaugh seeks to “dehumanize” people. Um. Did Gloria Steinem forget that she called housewives “dependent creatures who are still children” and “parasites”? That is the Left’s standard operating procedure. That is what they do, always, and especially with regard to women. This has been proven over and over again and only the willfully ignorant can’t see it. Gloria Steinem also said that one cannot be a feminist and be conservative and pro-life. A group called Liberal Ladies Who Lunch has launched a campaign to withhold sex. The founder of the group said the following:

“American men enjoy the benefits of women making their own choices about when to get pregnant. Men get the advantage of free, easy access sex with young women of child-bearing age. It wasn’t like that sixty years ago. If women can’t get reliable birth control, they will just have to keep their legs crossed to prevent pregnancy–even married women. I don’t think anyone wants that.”

Rush can afford the lawyers, but what about the rest of the men out there that try to oppose feminism and find themselves extradited to Washington State for what they write online? It happened to me.