$153M in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented(edition.cnn.com)
edition.cnn.com
$153M in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
52 comments
> There are prevailing market rates for high profile appearances.
The problem isn't that they charged for the speeches, which is standard. The problem is that they kept the money for themselves, which is a huge ethics issue.
The problem isn't that they charged for the speeches, which is standard. The problem is that they kept the money for themselves, which is a huge ethics issue.
It doesn't matter if they keep the money, donate it to their self run slush fund[1], or launder it through the Democratic Party[2]. The ethics issue is taking money from people who you're supposed to be regulating and misrepresenting your allegiances to voters.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation
[2]: http://www.mahablog.com/2016/02/23/elaborating-on-the-dnc-cl...
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation
[2]: http://www.mahablog.com/2016/02/23/elaborating-on-the-dnc-cl...
> It doesn't matter if they keep the money
If she's getting speaking appearances based on her position as secretary of state, I think it's fine as long as the money goes to the state department and there aren't any conflicts of interest. That obviously wasn't the case here though.
If she's getting speaking appearances based on her position as secretary of state, I think it's fine as long as the money goes to the state department and there aren't any conflicts of interest. That obviously wasn't the case here though.
Both of them are currently private citizens. They have no ethical obligation to do anything with their income.
Regardless of politics, all private citizens have ethical obligations regarding what they do with their money. That's the nature of ethics.
I think you meant "conflicts-of-interest", as in private citizens don't have conflicts-of-interest about governance and policy in terms of their income. That would be a more valid statement.
I think you meant "conflicts-of-interest", as in private citizens don't have conflicts-of-interest about governance and policy in terms of their income. That would be a more valid statement.
Right now not. But it's definitely a warning sign if somebody who is running for president is indebted to banks.
They are also greedy. After the first 100 million they have made they should be rich enough to give their wisdom to non profits who have less money than banks.
They are also greedy. After the first 100 million they have made they should be rich enough to give their wisdom to non profits who have less money than banks.
> indebted to banks
> They are also greedy. After the first 100 million
The bankers are not stupid. They don't give a lot of money for nothing. They expect that the Clintons will open doors for them. The Clintons know that too so if they want to keep the money rolling they better be useful for the banks.
I am not telling them what to do with their money but it should be clear to everybody who their paymasters are.
I am not telling them what to do with their money but it should be clear to everybody who their paymasters are.
> They don't give a lot of money for nothing
- Impressing your clients: "Of course we're large, powerful, and trustworthy - Bill came to talk us last week"
- Hospitality to your clients; offering important clients a chance to come and watch the speaker
- Making the partners feel like Very Important Peoples
- Morale boosting for current and future employees
As a random example, I note that CareerBuilder had Condoleeza Rice speak at their Empower 2015 sales conference. Do you think there was a political / regulatory angle there?
I think the bankers hope for some more direct benefits but I really don't know. It certainly would be interesting to find out if they pay the same money for other celebrities. One theory could be that by paying lots of money to former politicians they send a signal to active politicians that there is a lot of money to be made later if they play nice now. This seems to work for a lot of regulatory agencies where people switch to highly paid jobs in industry later (see SEC for example or Eric Holder could be an example too).
I don't know about CareerBuilder's motivations and I don't know how much they paid.
I don't know about CareerBuilder's motivations and I don't know how much they paid.
> It certainly would be interesting to find out if they
> pay the same money for other celebrities.
http://www.cityam.com/221317/forget-politicians-salaries-its...
Blair is an interesting one - USD $600,000 (converted from GBP) for a speech. I'm really not sure what political influence the Filipino company that paid him that could have hoped to get, but I can certainly understand the PR benefits from their perspective.
> You can't really prove it, but you can reason that
> this is to the detriment of the public at large
I have read that they also get paid around 300k for college commencement speeches. I think a lot of people think those speeches are made for free to support young people. So the speaker gets a boatload of money and a lot of credit for doing something good for youth. A double win.
Is this funded by tuitions?
It's typically funded by university budgets, so in part by tuition. Sometimes universities will claim it's funded out of non-tuition money, but money is fungible so it's hard to really say that credibly, unless you can demonstrate that it's funded by entirely separate money that wouldn't have existed had it not been for the commencement speaker. For example claiming it's funded entirely by a major donor is misleading if it's money the major donor would have donated anyway.
It truly astounds me that people just shrug and say "That's politics" when you point this sort of thing out.
It was not always this way. There is a clear conflict of interest.
It was not always this way. There is a clear conflict of interest.
> It was not always this way
Here's a book on the subject: https://books.google.com/books/about/Corruption_in_America.h...
Citation:
[1] The good ol' days.
[1] The good ol' days.
The good ol' days being approximately 95 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal
Wow, if that happened today, it wouldn't even be in the news, much less result in a scandal and someone going to prison.
Well at that level, it probably all cancels each other out.
Let's say I'm a VP at Google and I'm moonlighting as a consultant for startups. If you were Google and you found out that I earned $153M from this, how would you feel about this?
The VP is likely required by employment contract to submit all such relationships (contracting, consulting, advisor boards, board of directors, and maybe even angel investments) to Google beforehand so that Google can run a conflict if interest check and give their blessing or prohibit the activity.
[deleted]
What's Google's policy on speaking fees? Or are you just curious how people would emotionally react to find a co-worker making a lot of money on the side?
It's no secret that Bill Clinton has made somewhere in the neighborhood of $250k per speech since he was president.
This number doesn't surprise me.
I'm surprised people want to hear what he has to say that much but I say if he can get that much, he should keep giving talks.
This number doesn't surprise me.
I'm surprised people want to hear what he has to say that much but I say if he can get that much, he should keep giving talks.
This is not about the speeches. It's about buying influence with well connected people.
It is not content. It is about buying contacts. Bill makes some phone call that enables a meeting with someone somewhere which leaves you rich and you pay some kickback. This is blatant corruption by people who are supposedly fighting for poor.
Kate Couric got $110,000 for a speech and she's a newscaster/anchor. I think you need to look at the broader market for paid speeches before you throw out such accusations.
The Clintons were not born with silver spoons in their mouth, and they grew from modest origins to where they are today. I don't hold it against them that they're able to command such high speaking fees anymore than some musicians can command high prices for concerts, or actors can command high salaries for movie parts.
The whole campaign to argue Hillary is corrupt hasn't really worked, and that's essentially what these kinds of articles are, an extension of the Sanders campaign argument. But her voting record is among the most liberal in Congress, more than her husband, more than Obama, it's more liberal than 82% of all congressional votes. (Susan Sarandon was on Bill Maher the other day and simply didn't want to hear the facts he raised about her voting record.)
Clinton has a penchant for policy wonkishness that doesn't sit well with young impatient progressives who want to make a quantum leap from here to there. So for example, if one is for a $12 minimum wage first, instead of forcing the entire nation to $15 instantly, because one is worried about the effect of a 200% increase to say, Bob's coffee-shop in Nebraska, one get's raked over the coals. Why is it so hard to understand there's a huge cost of living difference in SF/NYC vs other states and a federal minimum wage quantum jump like that should be done cautiously?
If one is for fracking as a temporary bridge, because natural gas is cleaner than coal and releases less CO2 if your regulate methane leakage and protect ground water, as well as sending less money to regimes which spread Wahhabism with the money, then of course, you're really just a neo-liberal owned by the Kochs. But is it realistic to ban fracking and coal and switch totally to renewables without a transition? You can't just be against something without a viable alternative.
I agree with pretty much everything Sanders wants to do, but I want a realistic vision of how to accomplish it and a reasonable time span. I don't like the way anyone who wants to advocate an iterative, incremental approach is shouted down as an establishment sell out. There's too much guilt-by-association going on, and not enough realistic discussion of the nuanced policy choices we face.
The Clintons were not born with silver spoons in their mouth, and they grew from modest origins to where they are today. I don't hold it against them that they're able to command such high speaking fees anymore than some musicians can command high prices for concerts, or actors can command high salaries for movie parts.
The whole campaign to argue Hillary is corrupt hasn't really worked, and that's essentially what these kinds of articles are, an extension of the Sanders campaign argument. But her voting record is among the most liberal in Congress, more than her husband, more than Obama, it's more liberal than 82% of all congressional votes. (Susan Sarandon was on Bill Maher the other day and simply didn't want to hear the facts he raised about her voting record.)
Clinton has a penchant for policy wonkishness that doesn't sit well with young impatient progressives who want to make a quantum leap from here to there. So for example, if one is for a $12 minimum wage first, instead of forcing the entire nation to $15 instantly, because one is worried about the effect of a 200% increase to say, Bob's coffee-shop in Nebraska, one get's raked over the coals. Why is it so hard to understand there's a huge cost of living difference in SF/NYC vs other states and a federal minimum wage quantum jump like that should be done cautiously?
If one is for fracking as a temporary bridge, because natural gas is cleaner than coal and releases less CO2 if your regulate methane leakage and protect ground water, as well as sending less money to regimes which spread Wahhabism with the money, then of course, you're really just a neo-liberal owned by the Kochs. But is it realistic to ban fracking and coal and switch totally to renewables without a transition? You can't just be against something without a viable alternative.
I agree with pretty much everything Sanders wants to do, but I want a realistic vision of how to accomplish it and a reasonable time span. I don't like the way anyone who wants to advocate an iterative, incremental approach is shouted down as an establishment sell out. There's too much guilt-by-association going on, and not enough realistic discussion of the nuanced policy choices we face.
You are mistaking political propaganda for economic arguments.
That's not how it works, or at the very least, it's a lot less black and white than that. There are enough people who will pay money to get a picture with Bill Clinton, or to hear Clinton speak, that it's completely worth it for an organization to spend a few hundred thousand dollars on his speaking fees.
A number of years ago my Dad was involved with a healthcare non-profit organization that paid Bill Clinton $125,000 for a speech (I don't remember the exact figure). They had him speak at a big theater, where a couple thousand people paid $100+. Then they had him as the featured guest at a dinner, which cost donors thousands of dollars to attend. They also had him tour their organization with the media. So all told, the organization raised a few hundred thousand dollars and got a lot of publicity.
Private sector companies - some big financial company or the National Association of Whatever - can get similar value from a Clinton speech. Maybe they can get money directly by selling tickets to a dinner with Clinton and having having him be the keynote speaker at their paid conference, or maybe they can use it as a reward/incentive for their clients (with the most important clients getting the most access to Clinton).
[Edit: I looked up Clinton's fee, it was $125,000)
A number of years ago my Dad was involved with a healthcare non-profit organization that paid Bill Clinton $125,000 for a speech (I don't remember the exact figure). They had him speak at a big theater, where a couple thousand people paid $100+. Then they had him as the featured guest at a dinner, which cost donors thousands of dollars to attend. They also had him tour their organization with the media. So all told, the organization raised a few hundred thousand dollars and got a lot of publicity.
Private sector companies - some big financial company or the National Association of Whatever - can get similar value from a Clinton speech. Maybe they can get money directly by selling tickets to a dinner with Clinton and having having him be the keynote speaker at their paid conference, or maybe they can use it as a reward/incentive for their clients (with the most important clients getting the most access to Clinton).
[Edit: I looked up Clinton's fee, it was $125,000)
If this were just some ex-President making a ton of cash for speeches, I really wouldn't care. The problem is that he's gunning for the White House, as "First Dude" (or whatever the title will be; we've never had one before).
Hillary constantly uses her experience as First Lady as political experience, and basically touts it as equivalent to VP or more. Similarly, if Hillary wins, Bill isn't going to just sit around the WH and screw interns (though he'll probably do that too), he's going to be using it as a political office, just like she did, and he'll use his position as her husband to influence her. So these people paying "speaking fees" are really just practicing legalized bribery.
Hillary constantly uses her experience as First Lady as political experience, and basically touts it as equivalent to VP or more. Similarly, if Hillary wins, Bill isn't going to just sit around the WH and screw interns (though he'll probably do that too), he's going to be using it as a political office, just like she did, and he'll use his position as her husband to influence her. So these people paying "speaking fees" are really just practicing legalized bribery.
First Gentleman?
It's not just the content, but his popularity and speaking ability.
I really have to question why this article is on HN; this site seems to normally highly discourage political discussion, and I really don't see what this has to do with tech. If you mods want to have political discussions, go ahead, but don't be surprised if they turn nasty, as they usually do in online forums.
In most EU countries they would be jailed.
> In most EU countries they would be jailed.
I'm sorry, but I read TFA and I'm not sure what you could be referring to... is it illegal in most EU countries for an event organizer to pay an honorarium to their invited speakers? Or to pay for speech in general? Consider that many make an honest and honorable living in this way... For example, Stephen King has earned tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars for his speech.
I'm sorry, but I read TFA and I'm not sure what you could be referring to... is it illegal in most EU countries for an event organizer to pay an honorarium to their invited speakers? Or to pay for speech in general? Consider that many make an honest and honorable living in this way... For example, Stephen King has earned tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars for his speech.
Not speaking to the legality, an honorarium is a token amount. This is not.
Really? For the speeches and conflict of interest? Or something else?
You rarely see an EU politician charged, let alone gaoled, especially those so high in the establishment hierarchy so I'm not overly convinced.
You rarely see an EU politician charged, let alone gaoled, especially those so high in the establishment hierarchy so I'm not overly convinced.
Ever hear of Berlusconi?
He was eventually dealt with legally, but only for his dealings with underage prostitutes.
He was eventually dealt with legally, but only for his dealings with underage prostitutes.
why? It's not illegal to speak for a fee in any country of the EU as far as I know.
Payments they're receiving are not really for their speeches. It's just a way to legally funnel money into their organization so they can sell access and influence.
I guess her speech was worth every penny. Such a good speech. Goldman liked it. Too bad the rest of us cannot enjoy it. Let's all pitch in and collect $225,000 for Hillary, so she can give a speech to us (over Skype maybe). I also want to be touched by Hillary's greatness.
The only reason this is an issue during this election is that nobody would pay Sanders anything significant to speak.
A former POTUS and the woman who has come closest to the office in history? That's a draw. It's worth paying for.
A former POTUS and the woman who has come closest to the office in history? That's a draw. It's worth paying for.
You must be confusing these speeches with concerts. The groups who pay for these speeches are not selling tickets to them and pocketing the difference.
edit: I worked for a sometimes controversial lobbying organization who hired H. Clinton to speak, and they 1) knew exactly what they were buying, and 2) weren't interested at all in the content of the actual speech.
edit: I worked for a sometimes controversial lobbying organization who hired H. Clinton to speak, and they 1) knew exactly what they were buying, and 2) weren't interested at all in the content of the actual speech.
Your second paragraph is a valid criticism, but the first is illogical.
> The groups who pay for these speeches are not selling tickets to them and pocketing the difference.
It seems that in some cases they are doing exactly that, if you count private fundraisers (not Clinton's own campaign fundraisers):
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-what-225000-and-p...
In other cases, attending the speech is presumably a perk of being in a high position at the companies in question, and like any other perk it can be priced despite individuals not directly paying for it.
(I suspect that a significant part of the demand is neither bribery nor related to the content of the speeches, but based on the attendee's desire to feel prestigious by being at an exclusive event. To this extent, it makes sense to hide the cost for the individual attendees behind indirections such as perks or fundraising for charity, because a more direct quid pro quo would cheapen the prestige by assigning it explicit monetary value. This is not to say that influence is not also a factor, which it surely is.)
> The groups who pay for these speeches are not selling tickets to them and pocketing the difference.
It seems that in some cases they are doing exactly that, if you count private fundraisers (not Clinton's own campaign fundraisers):
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-what-225000-and-p...
In other cases, attending the speech is presumably a perk of being in a high position at the companies in question, and like any other perk it can be priced despite individuals not directly paying for it.
(I suspect that a significant part of the demand is neither bribery nor related to the content of the speeches, but based on the attendee's desire to feel prestigious by being at an exclusive event. To this extent, it makes sense to hide the cost for the individual attendees behind indirections such as perks or fundraising for charity, because a more direct quid pro quo would cheapen the prestige by assigning it explicit monetary value. This is not to say that influence is not also a factor, which it surely is.)
[deleted]
I heard Bill Clinton speak at a fundraiser for a healthcare non-profit (see my comment above for a more detailed description). The organization paid Clinton $100,000+ to speak (this was 10 years ago at least) and then sold tickets for $100+ for the speech and for thousands of dollars to a private dinner. IIRC it was a very successful fundraiser for them and they netted several hundred thousand dollars.
It's not worth paying for and the "real" service rendered for payment is suspect.
Spending this kind of cash on public servants serves an economic purpose too: it buys access, influence, and favour by association. You can't really prove it, but you can reason that this is to the detriment of the public at large.