Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US gov't interests

[webfact]

Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US gov't interests
By STEPHEN BRAUN

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

Presidents are not generally bound by many of the ethics and conflict-of-interest regulations that apply to non-elected executive branch officials, although they are subject to laws covering related conduct, such as bribery and illegal gratuities. Clinton's 94 paid appearances over two years on the speech circuit leave her open to scrutiny over decisions she would make in the White House or influence that may affect the interests of her speech sponsors.

Rival presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders and Republican critics have mocked Clinton over her closed-door talks to banks and investment firms, saying she is too closely aligned to Wall Street to curb its abuses. Sanders said in a speech in New York that Clinton earned an average of about $225,000 for each speech and goaded her for declining to release transcripts.

"If somebody gets paid $225,000 for a speech, it must be an unbelievably extraordinary speech," Sanders said at an outdoor rally at Washington Square Park last week in advance of the New York primary. "I kind of think if that $225,000 speech was so extraordinary, she should release the transcripts and share it with all of us."

Clinton said again Thursday she will release transcripts of her paid speeches to private groups or companies when other political candidates do the same. She compared such disclosures to the long-standing practice of politicians being expected to release their income tax returns, which she did far earlier and more thoroughly than Sanders in the campaign.

"Now there's a new request to release transcripts of speeches that have been given," Clinton said during a town hall. "When everybody agrees to do that, I will as well because I think it's important we all abide by the same standards. So, let's do the tax return standard first because that's been around for a really long time."

Clinton has said she can be trusted to spurn her donors on critical issues, noting that President Barack Obama was tough on Wall Street despite his prolific fundraising there. But her earnings of more than $21.6 million from such a wide range of interest groups could affect public confidence in her proclaimed independence.

"The problem is whether all these interests who paid her to appear before them will expect to have special access when they have an issue before the government," said Lawrence M. Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington-based election watchdog group.

The AP review identified at least 60 firms and organizations that sponsored Clinton's speeches and lobbied the U.S. government at some point since the start of the Obama administration. Over the same period, at least 30 also profited from government contracts. Twenty-two groups lobbied the State Department during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. They include familiar Wall Street financial houses such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., corporate giants like General Electric Co. and Verizon Communications Inc., and lesser-known entities such as the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and the Global Business Travel Association.

Clinton's two-year speaking tour, which took place after she resigned as secretary of state, "puts her in the position of having to disavow that money is an influence on her while at the same time backing campaign reform based on the influence on money," said Noble, a former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission. "It ends up creating the appearance of influence."

Clinton dismissed those concerns in a town hall in Columbia, South Carolina, saying that "the argument seems to be that if you ever took money from any business of any kind, then you can't fulfill your public responsibilities. Well, that's just not the case."

Clinton's spokesman, Brian Fallon, said in a statement, "Hillary Clinton's record shows she has consistently taken on these very same industries, and to suggest she would deviate from that at all as president is completely baseless."

Despite months of controversy over her speeches to Wall Street patrons, Clinton's biggest rewards came from Washington's trade associations, the lobbying groups that push aggressively for industry interests. Trade groups paid Clinton more than $7.1 million, the review showed.

The National Association of Realtors spent $38.5 million on government contacts in 2013, the same year it paid Clinton $225,000 to appear at the group's gathering in San Francisco. A group spokesman said Clinton was among former U.S. officials invited to share their experiences but said she was not paid as part of its lobbying activities.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents biotech and pharmaceutical firms, spent between $7 million and $8.5 million annually on lobbying since 2008, including contacts with the State Department — during Clinton's tenure — on the agency's biotech discussions with foreign governments. The trade group, which hosted Clinton for $335,000 at its event in San Diego in June 2014, has won more than $425,000 in federal payments since 2008 in work for the National Science Foundation and other agencies. The group did not respond to phone calls or emails for comment from AP.

The financial services and investment industry accounted for about $4.1 million of Clinton's earnings. Its ranks included not only Wall Street powerhouses like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Corp., but also private equity and hedge funds like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. LP and Apollo Global Management LLC and foreign-owned banks such as Deutsche Bank AG and the Canada Imperial Bank of Commerce. Goldman Sachs, which gave Clinton $675,000 for three speeches in 2013, and Morgan Stanley, which paid her $225,000 for one speech the same year, both spent millions lobbying the U.S. during Clinton's term at the State Department.

Nearly three dozen of Clinton's benefactors spent more than $1 million annually on contacts with officials and Congress during the same year they paid her to appear at their corporate or association events, according to federal lobbying records. Many earned millions more in government contracts — indications of the regulatory and policy stances the groups might advocate during a Clinton presidency.

General Electric, which paid her $225,000 for a speech in Boca Raton, Florida, in January 2014, has the most extensive government portfolio. GE has spent between $15.1 million and $39.2 million annually on lobbying. The company has won nearly $50 million in government work since 2008, including $1.7 million from the State Department for lab equipment and data processing during Clinton's tenure. The firm also lobbied the State Department all four years under Clinton on issues including trade and Iran sanctions.

As secretary of state, Clinton visited a GE aviation facility in Singapore and touted the State Department's role aiding GE industrial and military deals abroad. Clinton met with GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt once about the agency's efforts to salvage a planned business exposition in Shanghai and also talked with him by phone, according to her calendars.

A GE spokeswoman said, "GE works closely with the U.S. government and State Department, which often advocates for U.S. exporters."

Clinton sought to defuse the issue of her Wall Street speeches during a February debate with Sanders by explaining that she "spoke to heart doctors, I spoke to the American Camping Association, I spoke to auto dealers, and, yes, I spoke to firms on Wall Street."

Even the sponsors Clinton cited in her defense engaged in public advocacy — an indication of how many might seek favors if Clinton were elected.

The Cardiovascular Research Foundation, a fundraising group for cutting-edge heart medicine, paid Clinton $275,000 for a speech in Washington in September 2014. That same year, the organization joined other medical and health care groups in urging the Federal Drug Administration to reconsider its generic labeling rules. Foundation spokeswoman Irma Damhuis said Clinton was invited as a "recognized thought leader," adding that "decisions on keynote speakers are made without a political agenda."

The National Automobile Dealers Association paid Clinton $325,000 for a convention speech in New Orleans in January 2014. That same year, the trade group spent $3.2 million lobbying federal officials on taxes, automotive and trucking issues, labor and finance. A spokesman said the group's lobbying and convention activities were separate.

The camping group also paid for lobbying in recent years, including $40,000 in 2015 on Transportation Department administrative actions, according to federal records. The group's New York and New Jersey affiliate paid Clinton $260,000 for a March 2015 speech in Atlantic City.

Deirdre Petting, an executive with the national group, said its lobbying was separate from the affiliate's decision to invite Clinton for the event.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-04-22

[keemapoot]

I think it's highly simplistic (and therefore attractive to most people) to assume that any payments to any (dem or Rep) ex-political office holder (and probable future Presidential candidate) automatically create some sort of irrevocable obligation that must and will be repaid or what? They will break your knees? They won't invite you to cocktail parties?

Companies like GE, who are global and one of the largest investors in many countries around the world do all sorts of things to curry favors with national governments and people. Seemingly altruistic large spending programs for things like CSR (corporate social responsibility) programs helping communities, schools, underprivileged, and all sorts of other things carry a dual purpose of creating goodwill, giving, and also increasing the goodwill of that company in the community. GE, and all US companies, are also prohibited from giving illegal bribes, etc. to win contracts, but that doesn't mean they do not or should not also do anything they can to create goodwill, including pay huge fees for fluffy speeches, etc..

We often hear this refrain "bought and paid for" with respect to politicians, and for sure there is some element of truth in that. But, to assume that every politician who accepted $250k for a speech will then automatically then sway legislation and government favor in consideration of $250k is silly. Think of the alternative. A politician never got cozy with any big industry and therefore, was never on the inside and privy to information. It's not desirable to have a complete outsider, either, because they are often clueless, and lack access.

None of this is to imply that Clinton is not securely in the pockets of big banks and big industry. She surely is. But it needs to be put into context of a modern big complex world of many competing industries throwing money at many things hoping to get an advantage.

Industries that do this realize it's a gamble. They may get a payoff or not.

[impulse]

We often hear this refrain "bought and paid for" with respect to politicians, and for sure there is some element of truth in that. But, to assume that every politician who accepted $250k for a speech will then automatically then sway legislation and government favor in consideration of $250k is silly.

If I'm on the board of a corporation that pays someone $250K and all we get is a speech, someone's got some serious 'splaining to do.

And anyone who claims they got paid over $500K for speaking because "that's what they offered to pay" (and there are no other strings attached), is too far out of touch with the real world that 99% of us live in. Corporations don't pay that for a speech- it's $20K for the speech and the rest is for access and influence over $$ Billion decisions.

[NovaBlue05]

1/4 million $$$ just to hear Hillary's electrifying oratory skills??

[shirtless]

Its money down the drain , These speeches are just another backhander for ex politicians.

[keemapoot]

We often hear this refrain "bought and paid for" with respect to politicians, and for sure there is some element of truth in that. But, to assume that every politician who accepted $250k for a speech will then automatically then sway legislation and government favor in consideration of $250k is silly.

If I'm on the board of a corporation that pays someone $250K and all we get is a speech, someone's got some serious 'splaining to do.

And anyone who claims they got paid over $500K for speaking because "that's what they offered to pay" (and there are no other strings attached), is too far out of touch with the real world that 99% of us live in. Corporations don't pay that for a speech- it's $20K for the speech and the rest is for access and influence over $$ Billion decisions.

Of course, but I've approved and paid much riskier bets on things like marketing and sponsorship, so it's just another cost of doing business; and,

Its money down the drain , These speeches are just another backhander for ex politicians.

Of course.

**Actually, the real influence peddling and purchasing occurs before or after the speech in private VIP meetings with the speaker, so that it's the access to the speaker (candidate) that is what they are paying for. Nobody needs to hear some windbag give a meandering uninspiring private speech. We've heard it all before.

Edited April 22, 2016 by keemapoot

[does]

It's pretty simplistic (actually enormously simplistic) to defend Clinton. She is a picture-perfect limousine liberal and part of the political elite of the past 30 years that has robbed the American people blind. I can't believe I am reading such nonsense here.

I think it's highly simplistic (and therefore attractive to most people) to assume that any payments to any (dem or Rep) ex-political office holder (and probable future Presidential candidate) automatically create some sort of irrevocable obligation that must and will be repaid or what? They will break your knees? They won't invite you to cocktail parties?

Companies like GE, who are global and one of the largest investors in many countries around the world do all sorts of things to curry favors with national governments and people. Seemingly altruistic large spending programs for things like CSR (corporate social responsibility) programs helping communities, schools, underprivileged, and all sorts of other things carry a dual purpose of creating goodwill, giving, and also increasing the goodwill of that company in the community. GE, and all US companies, are also prohibited from giving illegal bribes, etc. to win contracts, but that doesn't mean they do not or should not also do anything they can to create goodwill, including pay huge fees for fluffy speeches, etc..

We often hear this refrain "bought and paid for" with respect to politicians, and for sure there is some element of truth in that. But, to assume that every politician who accepted $250k for a speech will then automatically then sway legislation and government favor in consideration of $250k is silly. Think of the alternative. A politician never got cozy with any big industry and therefore, was never on the inside and privy to information. It's not desirable to have a complete outsider, either, because they are often clueless, and lack access.

None of this is to imply that Clinton is not securely in the pockets of big banks and big industry. She surely is. But it needs to be put into context of a modern big complex world of many competing industries throwing money at many things hoping to get an advantage.

Industries that do this realize it's a gamble. They may get a payoff or not.

[SOTIRIOS]

....I read that 6 billion US went missing during her past tenure.....

...nothing ever mentioned though....

[grumpyoldman]

....I read that 6 billion US went missing during her past tenure.....

...nothing ever mentioned though....

Guess your momma didn't tell you "don't believe everything you read" .

[ggt]

Money thrown around by the rich and powerful are a disgusting display of elitism...

The middle-class have had to scrimp and work two jobs just to get by...while these greedy trolls flaunt their money in all manner of excess...

Ole Bernie may be on to something...it is about time to give the masses a piece of the pie...instead of the crumbs from the floor...

[helpisgood]

We often hear this refrain "bought and paid for" with respect to politicians, and for sure there is some element of truth in that. But, to assume that every politician who accepted $250k for a speech will then automatically then sway legislation and government favor in consideration of $250k is silly.

If I'm on the board of a corporation that pays someone $250K and all we get is a speech, someone's got some serious 'splaining to do.

And anyone who claims they got paid over $500K for speaking because "that's what they offered to pay" (and there are no other strings attached), is too far out of touch with the real world that 99% of us live in. Corporations don't pay that for a speech- it's $20K for the speech and the rest is for access and influence over $$ Billion decisions.

I see Impulse's point. These are business people looking at profit margins. So, you do not just shell out $250,000 without a really good reason, if you want to keep your job. What could anyone possibly say that is worth that much money? Let me guess: As a politician, I know a way that you can get a good return on your investment of $250,000.

If the speaker's advice in the speech helps the audience while also serving the public good, than why not reveal it to the public?

Sadly, it seems to me that these "speaking fees" are no more than a way to pay a bribe without calling it a bribe. It's a loophole.

[ttthailand]

Does Hillary really provide information worth $225,000 for an hour. I say buy the tape or CD. It's a pay off and who ever thinks otherwise is stupid or approves of backhanders, period !!!

[grumpyoldman]

For those of you who think this is something new, whew(!) wake up and smell the petunias !

Political influence peddling to finance campaigns has been going on for a long time folks, HRC is not the first durian to roll off the truck in this instance.

Is it the information she provides during the speech, of course not, I mean GW Bush, the worst president in the history of the U.S. gets $100,000 for a speaking engagement, to what, talk about what it's like to sit in a second grade class room while the worst terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil was occurring?

Nothing new here, move on............

[little mary sunshine]

More of the crooked Clinton's....if she is ever

Elected....more of the,same trash politics

[chuckd]

For those of you who think this is something new, whew(!) wake up and smell the petunias !

Political influence peddling to finance campaigns has been going on for a long time folks, HRC is not the first durian to roll off the truck in this instance.

Is it the information she provides during the speech, of course not, I mean GW Bush, the worst president in the history of the U.S. gets $100,000 for a speaking engagement, to what, talk about what it's like to sit in a second grade class room while the worst terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil was occurring?

Nothing new here, move on............

Rather blatant attempt at deflection. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary's money grab.

Remember..."We were flat broke when we left the White House."

The next shoe to drop will be the investigation currently on-going about the Clinton Foundation and donations by foreign governments.

After that...?

[chuckd]

....I read that 6 billion US went missing during her past tenure.....

...nothing ever mentioned though....

Guess your momma didn't tell you "don't believe everything you read" .

I believe many would tend to believe the State Department Inspector General.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

State Dept. misplaced $6B under Hillary Clinton: IG report

By Adam Kredo — The Washington Free Beacon

Friday, April 4, 2014

The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a “significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department’s contract actions,” according to the report.

The alert, originally sent on March 20 and just released this week, warns that the missing contracting funds “could expose the department to substantial financial losses.”

Read more here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/state-dept-misplaced-6b-under-hillary-clinton-ig-r/?page=all

[SgtRock]

Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US gov't interests

He who pays the piper calls the tunes.

Never a truer phrase coined.

[grumpyoldman]

....I read that 6 billion US went missing during her past tenure.....

...nothing ever mentioned though....

Guess your momma didn't tell you "don't believe everything you read" .

I believe many would tend to believe the State Department Inspector General.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

State Dept. misplaced $6B under Hillary Clinton: IG report

By Adam Kredo — The Washington Free Beacon

Friday, April 4, 2014

The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a “significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department’s contract actions,” according to the report.

The alert, originally sent on March 20 and just released this week, warns that the missing contracting funds “could expose the department to substantial financial losses.”

Read more here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/state-dept-misplaced-6b-under-hillary-clinton-ig-r/?page=all

"Contracts related to the U.S. war in Iraq, for instance, could not be produced in 33 out of 115 instances, according to the report."

Sorry, but that war started under the Bush administration, and maybe you might go scratching around Haliburton and those no bid contracts, aye?

This is just more political smear, but say hello to HRC Admin 1 in November, ain't no fire, just politicos blowing smoke, much like the email fiasco.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Scott
Name edited out

[BlueSkyCowboy]

We often hear this refrain "bought and paid for" with respect to politicians, and for sure there is some element of truth in that. But, to assume that every politician who accepted $250k for a speech will then automatically then sway legislation and government favor in consideration of $250k is silly.

If I'm on the board of a corporation that pays someone $250K and all we get is a speech, someone's got some serious 'splaining to do.

And anyone who claims they got paid over $500K for speaking because "that's what they offered to pay" (and there are no other strings attached), is too far out of touch with the real world that 99% of us live in. Corporations don't pay that for a speech- it's $20K for the speech and the rest is for access and influence over $$ Billion decisions.

We, the fools, do have the government we "elected" and deserve. Just look at the illegal "Squatters" in the WH

[chuckd]

....I read that 6 billion US went missing during her past tenure.....

...nothing ever mentioned though....

Guess your momma didn't tell you "don't believe everything you read" .

I believe many would tend to believe the State Department Inspector General.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

State Dept. misplaced $6B under Hillary Clinton: IG report

By Adam Kredo — The Washington Free Beacon

Friday, April 4, 2014

The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a “significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department’s contract actions,” according to the report.

The alert, originally sent on March 20 and just released this week, warns that the missing contracting funds “could expose the department to substantial financial losses.”

Read more here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/state-dept-misplaced-6b-under-hillary-clinton-ig-r/?page=all

"Contracts related to the U.S. war in Iraq, for instance, could not be produced in 33 out of 115 instances, according to the report."

Sorry, but that war started under the Bush administration, and maybe you might go scratching around Haliburton and those no bid contracts, aye?

This is just more political smear, but say hello to HRC Admin 1 in November, ain't no fire, just politicos blowing smoke, much like the email fiasco.

You might want to polish up your reading skills. The first sentence of the linked article says this...

"The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years

Again, Bush has nothing to do with the missing $6 Billion in State Department funds. He has been out of office over seven years.

But tell me, if Clinton should manage to stay out of jail and win the election, who will all you folks blame for her mistakes?

Bush or...Obama?

[keemapoot]

It's pretty simplistic (actually enormously simplistic) to defend Clinton. She is a picture-perfect limousine liberal and part of the political elite of the past 30 years that has robbed the American people blind. I can't believe I am reading such nonsense here.

I think it's highly simplistic (and therefore attractive to most people) to assume that any payments to any (dem or Rep) ex-political office holder (and probable future Presidential candidate) automatically create some sort of irrevocable obligation that must and will be repaid or what? They will break your knees? They won't invite you to cocktail parties?

Companies like GE, who are global and one of the largest investors in many countries around the world do all sorts of things to curry favors with national governments and people. Seemingly altruistic large spending programs for things like CSR (corporate social responsibility) programs helping communities, schools, underprivileged, and all sorts of other things carry a dual purpose of creating goodwill, giving, and also increasing the goodwill of that company in the community. GE, and all US companies, are also prohibited from giving illegal bribes, etc. to win contracts, but that doesn't mean they do not or should not also do anything they can to create goodwill, including pay huge fees for fluffy speeches, etc..

We often hear this refrain "bought and paid for" with respect to politicians, and for sure there is some element of truth in that. But, to assume that every politician who accepted $250k for a speech will then automatically then sway legislation and government favor in consideration of $250k is silly. Think of the alternative. A politician never got cozy with any big industry and therefore, was never on the inside and privy to information. It's not desirable to have a complete outsider, either, because they are often clueless, and lack access.

None of this is to imply that Clinton is not securely in the pockets of big banks and big industry. She surely is. But it needs to be put into context of a modern big complex world of many competing industries throwing money at many things hoping to get an advantage.

Industries that do this realize it's a gamble. They may get a payoff or not.

I'm not defending Clinton, I'm defending corporations who pay for her to speak to them. I'm also defending organizations that pay for Republicans to speak. I'll give an example of one I attended. It's far enough back in time that it should not compromise anyone.

The Asia Society Policy Institute is a nonprofit organization that focuses on educating the world about Asia. About 20 some years ago I attended a talk at the Asia Society in Hong Kong given by then ex-President George. H.W. Bush, who had been out of office not long. Several key industry leaders at my front table were keenly anticipating their brief private audience with Pres. Bush after the talk and dinner. They were interested in doing business in China and Thailand, and in obtaining key introductions they otherwise could not get.

Some of those CEOs went on to meet important people, negotiate and sign deals and ship products to the U.S. at lower prices which benefited consumers. Pres. Bush got paid a bundle. U.S. taxpayers footed a big bill in the quite large Secret Service contingent that accompanied the President.

So, you may ask, is it wrong that I defend Pres. Bush to attend this Society and give the talk? I don't think so. Nor do I think it's wrong (on its face) that Clinton did so after her term as Secretary of State.

You may question the ethics of this, but I am arguing that both Democrats and Republicans do it. So, don't tell me it's simplistic to defend Clinton. I'd be willing to bet you'll never get an invite to meet a President.

[chuckd]

It's pretty simplistic (actually enormously simplistic) to defend Clinton. She is a picture-perfect limousine liberal and part of the political elite of the past 30 years that has robbed the American people blind. I can't believe I am reading such nonsense here.

I think it's highly simplistic (and therefore attractive to most people) to assume that any payments to any (dem or Rep) ex-political office holder (and probable future Presidential candidate) automatically create some sort of irrevocable obligation that must and will be repaid or what? They will break your knees? They won't invite you to cocktail parties?

Companies like GE, who are global and one of the largest investors in many countries around the world do all sorts of things to curry favors with national governments and people. Seemingly altruistic large spending programs for things like CSR (corporate social responsibility) programs helping communities, schools, underprivileged, and all sorts of other things carry a dual purpose of creating goodwill, giving, and also increasing the goodwill of that company in the community. GE, and all US companies, are also prohibited from giving illegal bribes, etc. to win contracts, but that doesn't mean they do not or should not also do anything they can to create goodwill, including pay huge fees for fluffy speeches, etc..

We often hear this refrain "bought and paid for" with respect to politicians, and for sure there is some element of truth in that. But, to assume that every politician who accepted $250k for a speech will then automatically then sway legislation and government favor in consideration of $250k is silly. Think of the alternative. A politician never got cozy with any big industry and therefore, was never on the inside and privy to information. It's not desirable to have a complete outsider, either, because they are often clueless, and lack access.

None of this is to imply that Clinton is not securely in the pockets of big banks and big industry. She surely is. But it needs to be put into context of a modern big complex world of many competing industries throwing money at many things hoping to get an advantage.

Industries that do this realize it's a gamble. They may get a payoff or not.

I'm not defending Clinton, I'm defending corporations who pay for her to speak to them. I'm also defending organizations that pay for Republicans to speak. I'll give an example of one I attended. It's far enough back in time that it should not compromise anyone.

The Asia Society Policy Institute is a nonprofit organization that focuses on educating the world about Asia. About 20 some years ago I attended a talk at the Asia Society in Hong Kong given by then ex-President George. H.W. Bush, who had been out of office not long. Several key industry leaders at my front table were keenly anticipating their brief private audience with Pres. Bush after the talk and dinner. They were interested in doing business in China and Thailand, and in obtaining key introductions they otherwise could not get.

Some of those CEOs went on to meet important people, negotiate and sign deals and ship products to the U.S. at lower prices which benefited consumers. Pres. Bush got paid a bundle. U.S. taxpayers footed a big bill in the quite large Secret Service contingent that accompanied the President.

So, you may ask, is it wrong that I defend Pres. Bush to attend this Society and give the talk? I don't think so. Nor do I think it's wrong (on its face) that Clinton did so after her term as Secretary of State.

You may question the ethics of this, but I am arguing that both Democrats and Republicans do it. So, don't tell me it's simplistic to defend Clinton. I'd be willing to bet you'll never get an invite to meet a President.

Hillary seems to be the only one that has accepted these honorariums fully knowing she was going to run for President later in life.

This old quotation comes to mind:

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."

Ronald Reagan

[keemapoot]

It's pretty simplistic (actually enormously simplistic) to defend Clinton. She is a picture-perfect limousine liberal and part of the political elite of the past 30 years that has robbed the American people blind. I can't believe I am reading such nonsense here.

I think it's highly simplistic (and therefore attractive to most people) to assume that any payments to any (dem or Rep) ex-political office holder (and probable future Presidential candidate) automatically create some sort of irrevocable obligation that must and will be repaid or what? They will break your knees? They won't invite you to cocktail parties?

Companies like GE, who are global and one of the largest investors in many countries around the world do all sorts of things to curry favors with national governments and people. Seemingly altruistic large spending programs for things like CSR (corporate social responsibility) programs helping communities, schools, underprivileged, and all sorts of other things carry a dual purpose of creating goodwill, giving, and also increasing the goodwill of that company in the community. GE, and all US companies, are also prohibited from giving illegal bribes, etc. to win contracts, but that doesn't mean they do not or should not also do anything they can to create goodwill, including pay huge fees for fluffy speeches, etc..

We often hear this refrain "bought and paid for" with respect to politicians, and for sure there is some element of truth in that. But, to assume that every politician who accepted $250k for a speech will then automatically then sway legislation and government favor in consideration of $250k is silly. Think of the alternative. A politician never got cozy with any big industry and therefore, was never on the inside and privy to information. It's not desirable to have a complete outsider, either, because they are often clueless, and lack access.

None of this is to imply that Clinton is not securely in the pockets of big banks and big industry. She surely is. But it needs to be put into context of a modern big complex world of many competing industries throwing money at many things hoping to get an advantage.

Industries that do this realize it's a gamble. They may get a payoff or not.

I'm not defending Clinton, I'm defending corporations who pay for her to speak to them. I'm also defending organizations that pay for Republicans to speak. I'll give an example of one I attended. It's far enough back in time that it should not compromise anyone.

The Asia Society Policy Institute is a nonprofit organization that focuses on educating the world about Asia. About 20 some years ago I attended a talk at the Asia Society in Hong Kong given by then ex-President George. H.W. Bush, who had been out of office not long. Several key industry leaders at my front table were keenly anticipating their brief private audience with Pres. Bush after the talk and dinner. They were interested in doing business in China and Thailand, and in obtaining key introductions they otherwise could not get.

Some of those CEOs went on to meet important people, negotiate and sign deals and ship products to the U.S. at lower prices which benefited consumers. Pres. Bush got paid a bundle. U.S. taxpayers footed a big bill in the quite large Secret Service contingent that accompanied the President.

So, you may ask, is it wrong that I defend Pres. Bush to attend this Society and give the talk? I don't think so. Nor do I think it's wrong (on its face) that Clinton did so after her term as Secretary of State.

You may question the ethics of this, but I am arguing that both Democrats and Republicans do it. So, don't tell me it's simplistic to defend Clinton. I'd be willing to bet you'll never get an invite to meet a President.

Hillary seems to be the only one that has accepted these honorariums fully knowing she was going to run for President later in life.

This old quotation comes to mind:

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."

Ronald Reagan

Chuck,

You do have a good point. The talk I mentioned was after President Bush Sr. left office. There was no future political position for him, though he still wielded tremendous power and clout and everyone I knew wanted to tap that.

Everyone and Hilary knew that her time at state was an apprenticeship for running for President again. We all knew it. She knew it. Was that morally wrong? I think you make a good argument that it is.

[helpisgood]

It's pretty simplistic (actually enormously simplistic) to defend Clinton. She is a picture-perfect limousine liberal and part of the political elite of the past 30 years that has robbed the American people blind. I can't believe I am reading such nonsense here.

I think it's highly simplistic (and therefore attractive to most people) to assume that any payments to any (dem or Rep) ex-political office holder (and probable future Presidential candidate) automatically create some sort of irrevocable obligation that must and will be repaid or what? They will break your knees? They won't invite you to cocktail parties?

Companies like GE, who are global and one of the largest investors in many countries around the world do all sorts of things to curry favors with national governments and people. Seemingly altruistic large spending programs for things like CSR (corporate social responsibility) programs helping communities, schools, underprivileged, and all sorts of other things carry a dual purpose of creating goodwill, giving, and also increasing the goodwill of that company in the community. GE, and all US companies, are also prohibited from giving illegal bribes, etc. to win contracts, but that doesn't mean they do not or should not also do anything they can to create goodwill, including pay huge fees for fluffy speeches, etc..

We often hear this refrain "bought and paid for" with respect to politicians, and for sure there is some element of truth in that. But, to assume that every politician who accepted $250k for a speech will then automatically then sway legislation and government favor in consideration of $250k is silly. Think of the alternative. A politician never got cozy with any big industry and therefore, was never on the inside and privy to information. It's not desirable to have a complete outsider, either, because they are often clueless, and lack access.

None of this is to imply that Clinton is not securely in the pockets of big banks and big industry. She surely is. But it needs to be put into context of a modern big complex world of many competing industries throwing money at many things hoping to get an advantage.

Industries that do this realize it's a gamble. They may get a payoff or not.

I'm not defending Clinton, I'm defending corporations who pay for her to speak to them. I'm also defending organizations that pay for Republicans to speak. I'll give an example of one I attended. It's far enough back in time that it should not compromise anyone.

The Asia Society Policy Institute is a nonprofit organization that focuses on educating the world about Asia. About 20 some years ago I attended a talk at the Asia Society in Hong Kong given by then ex-President George. H.W. Bush, who had been out of office not long. Several key industry leaders at my front table were keenly anticipating their brief private audience with Pres. Bush after the talk and dinner. They were interested in doing business in China and Thailand, and in obtaining key introductions they otherwise could not get.

Some of those CEOs went on to meet important people, negotiate and sign deals and ship products to the U.S. at lower prices which benefited consumers. Pres. Bush got paid a bundle. U.S. taxpayers footed a big bill in the quite large Secret Service contingent that accompanied the President.

So, you may ask, is it wrong that I defend Pres. Bush to attend this Society and give the talk? I don't think so. Nor do I think it's wrong (on its face) that Clinton did so after her term as Secretary of State.

You may question the ethics of this, but I am arguing that both Democrats and Republicans do it. So, don't tell me it's simplistic to defend Clinton. I'd be willing to bet you'll never get an invite to meet a President.

Keemapoot, IMHO, you are among the more sensible posters I have read, and I have often enjoyed reading your posts. Thank you! So, I will assume that you are trying to make a well-meaning point.

I think that the point of your example is that sometimes these speeches are opportunities for new business connections to be made that serve a good purpose and, in the long run, can also serve the public good. I can buy that (no pun intended).

However, my guess is that, based upon the OP article, many posters here are focusing more on occasions when members of a certain industry or large corporation or maybe even a labor union spend very large sums of money for a speech by a politician who could very well become president (not an ex-president).

Also, it is very clear that influence over this possible new president at the expense of the public good is a likely motivation considering that the speech is kept secret. In fact, I do not recall any explanation by HRC about the purpose of the secrecy except that other politicians need to release their own speeches first. Not only is that not exactly my idea of leadership, but what is there to hide? It's not as if she has raised attorney-client privilege.

Let's assume that she stated at those speeches some wonderful new ideas about how to improve the banking system or some other ideas in the public interest. Why not announce it to the world? Would it not well serve the interests of the politician speaker and the industry or corporation to show that they have the public good at heart and that great things are being discussed and planned?

Plus, we all know too well how much influence Wall Street has had on the federal government as shown by who has had important jobs in the federal govt., viz., people from the Wall Street businesses they pretend to regulate.

Therefore, I think you have stated a good example when speaking fees for a politician, albeit an ex-politician, can be a good or even a laudable act. However, it seems to me to be distinguishable from what I think the OP and the other posters were discussing.

By the way, my gripe about these speaker fees does not just include HRC. I agree with grumpyoldman above to the extent that this is nothing new about this under the sun. I do not doubt that there are other examples.

As for that invite by a president, I would be all to happy disclose what transpired unless I have a stated justifiable reason to keep it confidential.

[Rancid]

In Asia politicians get into power and steal whatever isn't tied down.

In the West its done a little differently, high profile politicians get their payoff after office with board appointments, speaking engagements etc. The corruption is the same, just like the outcome, namely politicians lining their pockets.

Small time politicians usually work the same as Asia, namely grab what they can while in office.

As I recall neither Bill or Hillary used to be multimillionaires, yet they are now (or Tony Blair for that matter) . Plus of course there is the Clinton Foundation that does take big money from foreigners and it seems favours have been done.

The Clintons have a very "interesting" history if inclined to dig.

[sgtsabai]

Hillary Clinton = bought and sold tool of Wall Street criminals and banksters. Like all the posters when someone complains about all the spying on innocent people by our governments say, "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", what is Clinton hiding? What she and the corporations do with these speaking bribes, oops, payments is immoral, unethical and against everything the US was supposed to be. It is bribery, they know it, everybody knows it and when one looks at who got what from corporations and then produced and passed legislation favoring them it becomes pretty evident.

[Ulic]

I would like to know which big business in the US has not lobbied the government.

It is just part of the business plan. Donations to election campaigns, paid speeches

positions on boards. Jobs in industries linked to oversight by government, jobs for

retiring military in companies supplying the military. All part of legal corruption in the

US. Unethical, yes, illegal no. Both sides of the isle are guilty.

[Linzz]

Clinton won't release the transcripts of her speeches she made at a $675,000 price tag because she needs to look like she supports the poor

She could release them to dispel the notion that it's not an insider game. But releasing them would show how much she is in their pocket and their future representative in the White House..Goldman Sach's influence extends into government in the EU as well with ex Goldman Sach's Mario Draghi as President of the European Central Bank.

If Trump becomes the nominee the bankers will be backing Hillary with unlimited finance to ensure her Presidency. They do not want to be at risk by Trump changing the rules. They won't care if Cruz is the nominee since he's involved with Goldman Sachs as well.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/something-else-clinton-is-hiding-is-enough-to-wipe-out-her-campaign/

Obama has said the mishandling of classified material is not necessarily a criminal offense so HRC will not be held accountable

Obama calls Snowden a traitor for leaking material while excuses Clinton for selling influence as Secretary of state

"Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Snowden/ Clinton ? A double standard.

Why is this not corruption and why is this not an imprisonable offense?

Why is not the cash torrent from foreign governments not a matter of national security?

Edited April 22, 2016 by Linzz

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed as well as a reply.

[Chicog]

Is there any politician in Washington who doesn't get money from big business?

What's the big deal? The amounts?