Hillary Clinton Defends High-Dollar Speaking Fees

[Unabogie]

With only two weeks to gain name recognition and speel out your "why I'm better than my opponent" in a primary and only a month - with limited funds - to run a national election. Especially without a national party to do your preliminary campaigning and provide the echo chamber which so many modern candidates depend upon. You aren't going to have large national private political organizations and groups or industrial special interests to parrot messages and magnify their impact. As the monies are going to be greatly restricted compared to the current system the time frame forces a concentration of the message. I don't see that longer time frames would be sustainable, yet alone desirable,...once the funding is severely curtailed.

As a side benefit, concentrating elections actually might allow people who normally suffer campaign fatigue in a seemingly near endless cycle of elections, to pay more attention to real issues and candidates without all the bluster/blow and mud of year-round consistently on-going elections.

You've forgotten a certain news network that only exists to elect Republicans, that would spend all year airing "stories" that serve as campaign commercials.

 

[Trakar]

You've forgotten a certain news network that only exists to elect Republicans, that would spend all year airing "stories" that serve as campaign commercials.

That would be campaigning by private party funding and a felony.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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).

how does that compare to say a president and vice president having really strong ties to the oil industry?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

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.

LULZ

 

[Spindrift]

That would be campaigning by private party funding and a felony.

How could that possibly be implemented?

 

[sunmaster14]

how does that compare to say a president and vice president having really strong ties to the oil industry?

It's a little different, unless you consider them to be Manchurian candidates groomed for office by the industry. In any case, a candidate's ties to a particular industry obviously becomes fodder in the campaign, and people can judge for themselves how much they are beholden to that interest.

My concern here is about the loophole in the campaign finance laws (although, my general view is that we should do away with most campaign finance laws). If these are arms-length transactions, and the groups paying her are really negotiating and trying to get the best price and really believe that they are getting $200K of value for one of her speeches, then that's fine. But the accounts I've heard are that Hillary's speeches are no different than what you would expect a candidate at a $50k per plate fundraiser would give.

Note also that the fact that her fees are in line with other top-tier speakers on the circuit does not tell the whole story. Although a Colin Powell at the top of his game might have commanded $200K per speech, he wasn't getting very many opportunities per year. There were a very limited number of groups in the world who were willing to pay him that for a speech. Hillary seems to be able to get a gig any time she wants. Which is suspicious in my view.

 

[Spindrift]

But the accounts I've heard are that Hillary's speeches are no different than what you would expect a candidate at a $50k per plate fundraiser would give.

Please provide a source for one of those accounts of her speeches. Otherwise, I don't believe you.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's a little different, unless you consider them to be Manchurian candidates groomed for office by the industry. In any case, a candidate's ties to a particular industry obviously becomes fodder in the campaign, and people can judge for themselves how much they are beholden to that interest.

My concern here is about the loophole in the campaign finance laws (although, my general view is that we should do away with most campaign finance laws). If these are arms-length transactions, and the groups paying her are really negotiating and trying to get the best price and really believe that they are getting $200K of value for one of her speeches, then that's fine. But the accounts I've heard are that Hillary's speeches are no different than what you would expect a candidate at a $50k per plate fundraiser would give.
Note also that the fact that her fees are in line with other top-tier speakers on the circuit does not tell the whole story. Although a Colin Powell at the top of his game might have commanded $200K per speech, he wasn't getting very many opportunities per year. There were a very limited number of groups in the world who were willing to pay him that for a speech. Hillary seems to be able to get a gig any time she wants. Which is suspicious in my view.

You have actual statistics or links to back-up those miscellaneous speculations?

 

[sunmaster14]

Please provide a source for one of those accounts of her speeches. Otherwise, I don't believe you.

Details are hard to come by because apparently Clinton restricts access to her speeches - video, audio, and transcripts. Which makes sense of course if you're charging $200K per. I remember reading about a couple of speeches she gave in Florida where attendees were quoted afterwards as saying they were disappointed with the boringly political substance. I haven't found it with 5 minutes of googling, and I'm not willing to do a lot more work.

I did find these two examples, however. The first sounds like a typical campaign speech to a favored constituency, the US Green Building Council. The second sounds a bit more interesting although it is in line with what I would expect for a Presidential candidate speaking in front of a potentially hostile crowd, which was the National Automobile Dealers Association, a Republican leaning group. Quotes from both articles, respectively.

Clinton's decision to accept the U.S. Green Building Council's invitation to deliver the Greenbuild keynote is an excellent illustration of what's known as the "invisible primary" in political circles. Even though the 2016 primaries haven't begun in earnest, there is still a race of sorts going on, and the objective is for candidates to persuade party-aligned interest groups that they alone possess the optimal balance of electability and issue purity that can deliver what those groups want in the policy arena.

Hillary Clinton said Monday her proudest moment as secretary of state was participating in the risky decision to raid the compound where Osama Bin Laden was living. Her biggest regret? The deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Mrs. Clinton, in a paid speech to roughly 4,000 attendees of the National Automobile Dealers Association annual conference, delivered a message of bridge building and skirted issues that might be unpopular with the largely Republican crowd. During a question-and-answer session after her speech, outgoing NADA Chairman David Westcott asked Mrs. Clinton if she would run for president in 2016. ”I don’t know,” she replied.

 

[sunmaster14]

You have actual statistics or links to back-up those miscellaneous speculations?

Hard to find data for Colin Powell's speeches. I did find that his net worth, as reported on financial statements filed before he became Sec of State in 2001 was estimated to over $28MM, and now it's around $45MM. So it's not like he's been cranking out the big bucks over the last 13 years, unless he lost all of his net worth in the financial crisis. Hillary, in contrast, is almost certainly time-limited and not opportunity limited.

 

[eeyore1954]

O'Reilly said she is a poster child for income inequality and should run as a republican. I found that pretty funny.

 

[eeyore1954]

Within weeks after leaving office, Ronald Reagan was paid two million dollars to speak in Japan.

Conservative hypocrisy is so blatant.

Are many conservatives complaining that she is able to command these speaking fees?

 

[eeyore1954]

I'll just eat at Waffle House.

At least the people there are talking about something that actually makes sense.

Scatteredsmotheredcovered!

I would prefer eating at the Waffle House over a $??,??? a plate dinner any day.

Have you ever heard Larry the Cable Guy talk about the Waffle house?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Hard to find data for Colin Powell's speeches. I did find that his net worth, as reported on financial statements filed before he became Sec of State in 2001 was estimated to over $28MM, and now it's around $45MM. So it's not like he's been cranking out the big bucks over the last 13 years, unless he lost all of his net worth in the financial crisis. Hillary, in contrast, is almost certainly time-limited and not opportunity limited.

Can I ask what sort of job you hold where you don't think earning more than a million a year is pretty good? You make it sound like he's eating government cheese. Powell may not be in Clintonville, but he's traditionally identified as someone who's been making the speakers' rounds. Since he didn't make that 17 mil while he was working for Li'l Georgie, let's assume it's SINCE he left office, so it's considerably more than a mil per year. During much of that time he was quite the fair-haired boy (bad choice of words, Foolmewunz, someone will be here to pull the You Pulled the Race Card card) and many people thought he should run for the nomination or be named as the veep candidate.

Don't see any complaints about him getting his back.

 

[elbe]

Please provide a source for one of those accounts of her speeches. Otherwise, I don't believe you.

I don't think it matters one way or another. The fact that he keeps bringing it up says more about his partisanship than any objective opinion on paid speeches.

 

[sunmaster14]

Can I ask what sort of job you hold where you don't think earning more than a million a year is pretty good?

I'm in investment management, which means I understand how easy it is to for rich people to use their money to make more money. If his income only balanced his expenses, then turning $28MM into $45MM over 13 years is a 7.3% per annum return. Not bad, but nothing exceptional either.

<snip>

Don't see any complaints about him getting his back.

Once again, I'm not complaining about people cashing in on their celebrity and experience. I'm just a little skeptical that Hillary Clinton is doing that. She might be cashing in on her potential to hand out the goodies once she's the most powerful person in the world.

 

[Francesca R]

turning $28MM into $45MM over 13 years is a 7.3% per annum return. Not bad, but nothing exceptional either.

CPI + 5% over those 13 years is pretty high actually.

 

[sunmaster14]

CPI + 5% over those 13 years is pretty high actually.

Not for the super-wealthy, and certainly not for a celebrity like Colin Powell. He gets all kinds of looks on investment opportunities that the rest of us could only fantasize about. Not saying he did this specifically, but people like him get chances to invest in Google or Facebook years before the IPO. They get put on the boards of various hot, fast growing companies too. The super-rich live in a different world where they turn their noses up at any investment opportunity which is not expected to yield double digit per annum returns.

 

[Trakar]

Stub Hub has more affordable tickets to upcoming Hillary events!
http://www.stubhub.com/hillary-clin...9X486&keyword=76726529_c&creative=33523582039

"A Conversation with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Tickets"

Are you sure these speeches aren't related to her book tour which kicks off today?
Either way, she is such an exciting and talented woman, it is always a benefit when she can share her life and ideas with the citizens of her country.

So many people across the nation adore her and respect her accomplishments and the sacrifices she has made for this country.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Not for the super-wealthy, and certainly not for a celebrity like Colin Powell. He gets all kinds of looks on investment opportunities that the rest of us could only fantasize about. Not saying he did this specifically, but people like him get chances to invest in Google or Facebook years before the IPO. They get put on the boards of various hot, fast growing companies too. The super-rich live in a different world where they turn their noses up at any investment opportunity which is not expected to yield double digit per annum returns.

Considering that we're talking about a 2001 portfolio, which probably took a considerable beating, anyone who increased their net worth by more than 50% over those 13 years was doing rather well, I think.

Oh, and anyone know how he earned most of that 28 mil? Speeches! Bwahahaha! Colin knows how to hit the rubber chicken circuit if he wants/needs to.