Hillary Clinton Defends High-Dollar Speaking Fees

[Francesca R]

I find it slightly amusing if a member taking issue with alleged partisanism is merely being partisan themselves. But not very.

 

[The Don]

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.

^This

If no this then at least be consistent. If it's unacceptable for Hillary Clinton to received $200k for a speaking engagement then it's equally unacceptable to have a $50k a plate fundraising dinner for the other guy. If the fundraising dinner is unacceptable then so, probably, is a $200k speaking engagement fee.

 

[Francesca R]

Would I prefer that she didn't do so? Yeah.

I wouldn't even prefer for her not to do this.

 

[Puppycow]

In my opinion, politicians (like Hillary) and quasi-politicians (like Ben Bernanke) are actually undercompensated in terms of their official salaries paid by the government. So it's understandable to me that they would all do this after they leave office (unless they are rich to begin with). The president's salary is puny compared to a star athlete or CEO of a Fortune 500 company. The Chairperson of the Federal Reserve Bank is paid much less than the Chairperson or CEO of a large private bank. And yet these jobs seem to be much more important than the corresponding private sector ones.

 

[jj]

Er, no. Pardon me, you reversed it. You brought up Mitt Romney events.

When you falsely construct an opinion for me from your own beliefs, I am not responsible. Your comments contain many facts not in evidence, and show that your agenda is not honest debate.

I admit I suspect that already.

 

[jj]

Er, My question is about your views. Which, all of a sudden it seems, you wish to hide from critical scrutiny.

This is classic Rovian mudslinging, demand something that has not been stated, nor enter debate, and then make false accusations about imagined positions. When that fails, dishonestly accuse the other party of "hiding".

It is, furthermore, utterly irrevocable evidence that the false, entirely dishonest accusation of "hiding" is refuted by a post several before this dishonest mudslinging.

Quite remarkable, really, in the brazen nature of it all.

 

[Francesca R]

Your comments contain many facts not in evidence

Do you have an opinion on whether it is OK for Hillary Clinton to be paid $200k for a speech? I do.

Do you have an opinion on whether Mitt Romney's $50k-a-plate fundraiser is OK, which you raised? I do.

Do you have no opinion on either?

Are you keeping your opinions on both secret?

What?

 

[jj]

Do you have an opinion on whether it is OK for Hillary Clinton to be paid $200k for a speech? I do.

Do you have an opinion on whether Mitt Romney's $50k-a-plate fundraiser is OK, which you raised? I do.

Do you have no opinion on either?

Are you keeping your opinions on both secret?

What?

Since I've already stated my opinion, why the dishonest insinuation that I have not?

Please explain this rhetorical misconduct.

 

[Francesca R]

Since I've already stated my opinion

Where?

 

[jj]

Where?

I'm not responsible for your egregious failure of diligence. Find it. It's plain as day if you bother to read it.

 

[Francesca R]

Evasion noted. It continues to appear that you wish to hide your views on this matter from critical scrutiny.

 

[DC]

200k? ha for that you can get at least 2 Speeches by Sarah Palin, and the stuff Palin says is alot funnier than what Clinton says.

but im a bit confused, i can understand when people worry about the huge sums of money that flow into politics, but 200k for a speech seems to be the least of problems....

 

[sunmaster14]

I bet she would.

It's debatable, but I don't think so. Condoleezza Rice charges $150K (and was willing to do Rutgers' commencement for $35K), but by all accounts she is an exciting speaker and Hillary is a boring one. In particular, Hillary has been giving campaign style speeches rather than the kinds of speeches one would expect from somebody who is largely retired from politics.

Again, it's debatable, but I think Condoleezza Rice is far more accomplished and interesting than Hillary Clinton. She's even a war criminal.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's interesting how you repeatedly reverse the context of comments. In the process, you build a straw man via inappropriate extrapolation, and reject the obvious point that the people complaining about Hillary here did not complain about Mittens and his minions.

More I won't say, but your misconduct is evident to the casual reader at this point.

You keep conflating Republicans here with other Republicans you've seen on TV (I suspect you don't meet many in real life since otherwise your views of them wouldn't be nearly as extreme).

I was actually very critical of Fox News giving jobs to prospective Republican Presidential candidates, which is about as close an example as I can think of to Hillary's highly paid campaign tour.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Until she's a candidate, I'd think the Free Market Mavens would approve of her earning her keep and not going on food stamps.

Well, that's the thing. She really is a candidate; she just hasn't made it official. Now, I think it's because she effectively is a candidate that she can command such high speaking fees, but I'll admit that I could be wrong about that. The only way to know for sure is to see what she commands if she drops out of the race.

 

[sunmaster14]

^This

If no this then at least be consistent. If it's unacceptable for Hillary Clinton to received $200k for a speaking engagement then it's equally unacceptable to have a $50k a plate fundraising dinner for the other guy. If the fundraising dinner is unacceptable then so, probably, is a $200k speaking engagement fee.

Note that there is an FEC imposed limit on the contribution amount by any individual per year. The reason why we had $50K a plate fundraising dinners and not $1MM a plate ones in 2012 is that the contribution by a single individual was limited to: 2x$2,500 (primary + general) + $30,800 (national party campaign committee) + $10,000 (state & local party committees) + $5,000 (any other campaign committee) = $50,800.

There is no such limitation on Hillary's speaking fees, although obviously she is seen by hundreds of people per engagement. However, it's not against the law for her to receive $200K to speak to a small group and for individuals to pay to see her speak multiple times. Also, the money is unrestricted.

 

[DC]

sounds like minimum and maximum wages for everyone are needed.

 

[Francesca R]

Hillary has been giving campaign style speeches rather than the kinds of speeches one would expect from somebody who is largely retired from politics.

One minute you're saying she's a POTUS candidate, the next she's largely retired from politics.

There's just a little bit of a difference.

 

[sunmaster14]

One minute you're saying she's a POTUS candidate, the next she's largely retired from politics.

There's just a little bit of a difference.

I think you're misreading what I wrote. I'm saying that she is a POTUS candidate, and that at least some of her speeches are like what you would expect from somebody on the campaign trail. And I am also saying those are less desirable from a listener's viewpoint than a speech from somebody largely retired from politics.

Somebody largely retired from politics can be more honest and insightful. Somebody still running for office necessarily has to mouth platitudes. I would pay $100 to hear a speech from Hillary Clinton which had no political constraints. I would pay $100 to not have to hear one of her campaign speeches.

 

[Francesca R]

Anyway I think it means she can readily generate much interest and income both from her past and possible future in politics.