Hillary Clinton Defends High-Dollar Speaking Fees

[ravdin]

I'm just glad to see a hardscrabble, middle class multimillionaire overcome her hardship and find a way to put food on the table in her multiple homes.

 

[Spindrift]

I'm just glad to see a hardscrabble, middle class multimillionaire overcome her hardship and find a way to put food on the table in her multiple homes.

Same way an upperclass, born with a silver spoon, failed oilman multimillionaire finds a way to support his Texas ranch and painting hobby.

 

[Darat]

I've been to quite a few events where a politician has been a (paid) speaker and not one of them has been boring - even the ones with a totally different political outlook to me. A good successful politician usually has "charisma" and can be in the flesh very entertaining.

Regardless of actual merit in any particular speech top public speakers command their price much like any other entertainer - many folk simply like the kudos of having a "star" at their event and are willing to pay for it no matter what the actual entertainment value is! See this for some quite amazing examples: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shocking-amounts-money-a-singer-163861

 

[eeyore1954]

Far be it from me to decry somebody getting rich in the private sector from voluntary transactions, but at what point does paying a politician an enormous fee to give a boring stump speech start to look like bribery?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-defends-high-dollar-speaking-fees/story?id=24052962

How would it be bribery?

 

[ravdin]

Same way an upperclass, born with a silver spoon, failed oilman multimillionaire finds a way to support his Texas ranch and painting hobby.

Peas in a pod.

 

[sunmaster14]

Apparently when the politician in question is a Democrat.

"But Clinton is a Democrat so what hell, I'll just dive right in."

Same way an upperclass, born with a silver spoon, failed oilman multimillionaire finds a way to support his Texas ranch and painting hobby.

Well, I've got the hypocrisy angle working for me as much as against me. Republicans are not the ones railing against income inequality and the 1% (the 0.05% in this case).

 

[sunmaster14]

How would it be bribery?

Look at it this way. Suppose Goldman Sachs paid Hillary $20MM to give a speech. That might look even worse than helping her turn $1,000 into $100,000 trading cattle futures.

 

[sunmaster14]

I've been to quite a few events where a politician has been a (paid) speaker and not one of them has been boring - even the ones with a totally different political outlook to me. A good successful politician usually has "charisma" and can be in the flesh very entertaining.

Regardless of actual merit in any particular speech top public speakers command their price much like any other entertainer - many folk simply like the kudos of having a "star" at their event and are willing to pay for it no matter what the actual entertainment value is! See this for some quite amazing examples: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shocking-amounts-money-a-singer-163861

That's a fair point, although perhaps in Hillary Clinton's case, her clients are really paying for a cure for insomnia:

“I’ve tried medications, herbal supplements, all kinds of different pills, even meditation to get to sleep,” said one participant who asked that his name be withheld, citing medical privacy. “But five minutes into Hillary’s speech and I was feeling more relaxed than I have in years. As she transitioned from talking about her support for democracy to her support for peace, I fell into a deep, restful slumber.”

 

[Upchurch]

Look at it this way. Suppose Goldman Sachs paid Hillary $20MM to give a speech. That might look even worse than helping her turn $1,000 into $100,000 trading cattle futures.

Again, what/where is the quid pro quo?

 

[sunmaster14]

Again, what/where is the quid pro quo?

I'm not saying I can prove bribery. Far from it. I'm not even saying it is bribery. I'm sort of inclined to agree with Francesca that $200K to hear Hillary Clinton speak, even if it is a hackneyed and self-promoting stump speech, is not that far out of line. I don't think Hillary would be getting that kind of speaking fee if it wasn't expected that her chances of becoming the next President were pretty good, but I still don't think there's anything illegal about it.

I just find it a little unseemly. In fact, to show my disapproval, I'm going to pledge, right here and now, not to vote for Hillary if she runs in 2016.

Actually, I think her rather dear speaking fee provides a good example of how stupid our campaign finance laws are. If you buy a $10 "Hillary in 2016 because what difference does it make" t-shirt for $30, that counts as a $20 campaign contribution. But if you pay her $200K to blather on for an hour, that counts as an arms-length business transaction.

 

[Upchurch]

I just find it a little unseemly.

So, what you're saying is that this thread could be summed up by the following:

"Conservative continues to dislike liberal politician"​

Maybe with a sub-header of "...for doing things that conservative politicians also do."

 

[ravdin]

I'm not saying I can prove bribery. Far from it. I'm not even saying it is bribery. I'm sort of inclined to agree with Francesca that $200K to hear Hillary Clinton speak, even if it is a hackneyed and self-promoting stump speech, is not that far out of line. I don't think Hillary would be getting that kind of speaking fee if it wasn't expected that her chances of becoming the next President were pretty good, but I still don't think there's anything illegal about it.

Better yet, spend that hour staring at a wall with a fresh coat of paint and watch it dry. At the end of that hour you'll be better informed about the state of the world and you'll have an extra $200K in your pocket.

 

[Trakar]

Hillary Clinton represents the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, which is pretty much indistinguishable from the Wall Street wing of the GOP.

And so does Obama, and as you mention, virtually all mainstream representatives of both major parties.

 

[uke2se]

Surely she can't demand this kind of money when she's president, so she's only living the American dream while she can.

 

[Seismosaurus]

She's not a retired President though.

I really don't care, but it irritates me she's be preaching about income inequality while raking in the dough doing it.

People who dislike income equality rarely have a problem with people being worse off or better off as such. It's more a matter of degree; that some are on the borders of starvation whilst others could pay Hillary to speak for a year straight without missing it.

 

[jj]

Wow, so the OP is opposed to the free market? Wow!

 

[sunmaster14]

Wow, so the OP is opposed to the free market? Wow!

My point is that it's not quite the free market. I claim that Hillary Clinton would not be worth paying $200K for a speech if not for the fact that she has a really good chance of becoming President, and because of the federal government's extensive control over the economy, it's worth exorbitant sums of money for businessmen to get on her good side.

If we had less government control over the economy, it might not be worth it to pay a future President hundreds of thousands of dollars for an hour of her time.

 

[jj]

My point is that it's not quite the free market. I claim that Hillary Clinton would not be worth paying $200K for a speech if not for the fact that she has a really good chance of becoming President, and because of the federal government's extensive control over the economy, it's worth exorbitant sums of money for businessmen to get on her good side.

It's interesting that you would say this about Hillary, but I didn't see any criticism of Mittens or 'W's million dollar a plate dinners.

 

[Darat]

I'm not saying I can prove bribery. Far from it. I'm not even saying it is bribery. I'm sort of inclined to agree with Francesca that $200K to hear Hillary Clinton speak, even if it is a hackneyed and self-promoting stump speech, is not that far out of line. I don't think Hillary would be getting that kind of speaking fee if it wasn't expected that her chances of becoming the next President were pretty good, but I still don't think there's anything illegal about it.


...snip....

You are joking?

"....After moving to the state, Clinton was elected the first female Senator from New York; she is the only First Lady ever to have run for public office.....snip.... Clinton was reelected to the Senate in 2006. Running in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton won far more primaries and delegates than any other female candidate in American history, ...snip... Obama nominated Clinton to be Secretary of State, and she was confirmed by the Senate in January 2009. ....snip.... Clinton visited more countries than any other Secretary of State. ...snip...[/quote]

That is by anyone's standards a remarkable political career, so I can see why people are paying a lot to get her at their events. I would have thought given the above she would be a much sought after speaker regardless of what she might or might not go on to do.

If she is ever over here and I get a chance I would certainly attend an event she was a speaker at.

 

[Brainster]

I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. Nor do I see anything particularly wrong with pointing out that it may generate criticism of her down the road if she does run for President. Given all the money her husband has generated in speaking fees, it would have been smarter for her politically to ask that the money she made from her speeches be donated to charity.