Hillary Clinton Defends High-Dollar Speaking Fees

sunmaster14

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
10,017
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

Hillary Clinton's individual speaking fees reportedly average $200,000 per appearance.

"Let me put it this way," Clinton told Sawyer. "I thought making speeches for money was a much better thing than getting connected with any one group or company as so many people who leave public life do."
Click to expand...
 
sunmaster14 said:
at what point does paying a politician an enormous fee to give a boring stump speech start to look like bribery?
Click to expand...

When the politician provides some quid pro quo to the group that paid the speaking fees for no other reason than the group paid a very large speaking fee. Until that point, the large amount of the fee is probably just due to supply and demand.
 
I have a Hillary Clinton fundraising story -- can't share all of the details. In interesting circumstances, she volunteered Bill to play golf with someone the very next morning. She called him at the office in Harlem while she was in Westchester and basically told him where and when to go. Bundles were bundled. It was quite an eye-opener into the process. On the upside, Bill and the donor got along great, and became friends. This was back during her Senate campaign.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Retired Presidents make most of their money this way. It's nothing new....
Click to expand...

I think it's worse though in the case of somebody who has a good chance of becoming President in the next three years. A retired President's influence is limited to his ability to chat up those in power. Hillary Clinton is essentially getting a high-powered, unrestricted form of campaign contribution (albeit after tax).
 
Upchurch said:
When the politician provides some quid pro quo to the group that paid the speaking fees for no other reason than the group paid a very large speaking fee. Until that point, the large amount of the fee is probably just due to supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Well, there's certainly a "pro" and a "quo." The question is what is the "quid" besides a mind-numbingly boring speech? At this point, of course, it is nothing more than an implicit promise to lend an ear to the group which ponied up the "quo." This is certainly not enough to be illegal, and most likely never will be. But it is a kind of influence peddling. And of course it does provide a nice way around the campaign finance laws, not that I'm a fan of those anyway.

Note that depending upon their respective tax brackets, making a campaign contribution by paying an outrageous speaking fee is not necessarily less tax efficient than doing so the normal way because the payer should be able to take a deduction for the fee.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I think it's worse though in the case of somebody who has a good chance of becoming President in the next three years. A retired President's influence is limited to his ability to chat up those in power. Hillary Clinton is essentially getting a high-powered, unrestricted form of campaign contribution (albeit after tax).
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line? Anyone who may run for president at some point in the future isn't allowed to get paid to give speeches? Why stop there? Anyone who may run for president or vice president is not allowed to work at companies that get a lot government contracts, like Halliburton, because it's essentially an unrestricted form of campaign contribution.
 
Hillary Clinton represents the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, which is pretty much indistinguishable from the Wall Street wing of the GOP.
 
Drysdale said:
She's not a retired President though.
Click to expand...
Didn't read the article did you?
sunmaster14 said:
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?
Click to expand...
You tell me? Be sure to compare her fees with Republicans.

Far be it from you then you go there. Rabid partisans are funny.

Edit - spelling
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
At this point, of course, it is nothing more than an implicit promise to lend an ear to the group which ponied up the "quo."
Click to expand...
I think you have that backwards. A speaking fee is generally paid by a group to hear the speaker talk, not for the speaker to listen to the group.

sunmaster14 said:
The question is what is the "quid" besides a mind-numbingly boring speech?
Click to expand...
Is it? What are people paying to talk about?


sunmaster14 said:
But it is a kind of influence peddling.
Click to expand...
How so?
 
sunmaster14 said:
at what point does paying a politician an enormous fee to give a boring stump speech start to look like bribery?
Click to expand...

At some point. The ceiling is not infinite. At some level it should invite suspicion and receive public censure. Let's not be absolutist.

But $200k for a speech from Hillary Clinton is just fine IMO.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Apparently when the politician in question is a Democrat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom