Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:17 AM Mar 2016

Does anybody else think Hillary's million dollar speaking fees were basically legal bribes?

I don't want to sound crazy here but...

It just seems kind of fishy that all these big companies who need government protection are paying millions directly to powerful politicians.

It's protection money right? If they don't pay then they might get regulated in a much bigger way right?

149 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Does anybody else think Hillary's million dollar speaking fees were basically legal bribes? (Original Post) Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 OP
There's also all that Clinton Foundation money from dicatators jfern Mar 2016 #1
I've heard it said she's the most corrupt candidate since the Boss Tweed era. reformist2 Mar 2016 #45
Obama should fire his speechwriter because they did him a diservice. Skwmom Mar 2016 #60
companies like lockheed that makes the F35's bernie voted for that will be stationed in Vermont? nt msongs Mar 2016 #2
I didn't see him accepting $250,000 speaking fees for that. Fuddnik Mar 2016 #5
This one really rubs me the wrong way.. Baobab Mar 2016 #13
He could not legally accept fees while a Senator... Sancho Mar 2016 #46
There are all those illegal foreign donations going into his campaign he hasn't explained... KittyWampus Mar 2016 #91
Just looked at FEC ALL versus HUGE jimmy_crack_corn Mar 2016 #119
Most male speakers on the circuit make even more than that, including Trump. blm Mar 2016 #114
How much money did they give to him or his foundation for his vote? Scootaloo Mar 2016 #7
Yea this is what a Sentator is suppose to do, Gwhittey Mar 2016 #12
Very well-informed comment. senz Mar 2016 #29
Clinton's campaign chairman EdwardBernays Mar 2016 #35
Yes, Yes, and... Fuddnik Mar 2016 #3
Hi Fiddnik Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #135
Yes, and maybe some were not quite legal litlbilly Mar 2016 #4
Nope. MADem Mar 2016 #6
Not everyone can be bought wilsonbooks Mar 2016 #15
That is just not correct. He had a wealthy wife--he always said he "married up." MADem Mar 2016 #24
That sure is a lot of obfuscation. Cartoonist Mar 2016 #42
No, it isn't. It's not fair to demand that a younger person behave like an elderly ex-president. MADem Mar 2016 #49
I'm not talking about young and old Cartoonist Mar 2016 #50
Now you tell me what I'm "allowed" to argue? MADem Mar 2016 #52
Question? cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #63
Governor Carter ran for POTUS straight away. He finished his term and hit the campaign trail. MADem Mar 2016 #72
I'm not sure I get your point. cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #75
What part of he finished his term and then ran immediately for POTUS is confusing to you? MADem Mar 2016 #78
She announce her run for president cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #80
Apparently? Seems like her formal announcement was much later than that. IIRC. MADem Mar 2016 #89
I was trying to save you the embarrassment Cartoonist Mar 2016 #70
You embarrass yourself. nt MADem Mar 2016 #76
Close relatives receiving any type of benefits is also considered accepting bribes.... Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #136
Don't give me that. cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #62
It's not my fault if you are unfamiliar with how government functions. MADem Mar 2016 #79
You focus on veto and skip the rest of what I said cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #81
You need to pull the string way back to post 42,after which you jumped in with your rather churlish MADem Mar 2016 #83
Hillary Clinton is still in politics I think marions ghost Mar 2016 #84
Look--if you can't follow the convo, don't bother. MADem Mar 2016 #139
Golly, I'm so dumb I must have said something YOU disagree with marions ghost Mar 2016 #141
Like I said, if you cannot follow the conversation, just don't bother. MADem Mar 2016 #142
Like I said, if you cannot follow the conversation, just don't bother. MADem Mar 2016 #142
did you burp or something? marions ghost Mar 2016 #144
Triple play--you're out! nt MADem Mar 2016 #145
Why did you post twice then? marions ghost Mar 2016 #147
That's a software glitch, not me. Check the post number (it's the same post). nt MADem Mar 2016 #148
The thing about writing books is cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #54
Yep. And libraries buy the books, usually several copies if they're good ones, so that MADem Mar 2016 #57
Again.. cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #65
So? You're not allowed to write a book until AFTER you finish your POTUS term? MADem Mar 2016 #68
Actually.. cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #71
Those weren't public speeches. Why would there be a public record? MADem Mar 2016 #74
Neither was cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #96
I think you're wishin' and hopin' for something that just isn't there. MADem Mar 2016 #98
If there's nothing there why doesn't she release them cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #99
Why don't we dig through your private files? What do you have to hide? MADem Mar 2016 #100
I'm not running for President of the United States cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #109
Sander's integrity speaks for itself... ReallyIAmAnOptimist Mar 2016 #133
Bribes, investments, etc... revbones Mar 2016 #8
What do they get from Larry the Cable Guy! Lady Gaga? PeaceNikki Mar 2016 #9
Hillary took $21,468,000 in speaking fees 2013-2015. kristopher Mar 2016 #32
It's insane to me Kristopher... Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #137
Again.. cannabis_flower Mar 2016 #66
Of course they are bribes coyote Mar 2016 #10
Anyone who doesn't think they are bribes has blinders on? EndElectoral Mar 2016 #105
I agree The Clintons are on the grift.... Avalon Sparks Mar 2016 #138
I believe she was a private citizen at the time griffi94 Mar 2016 #11
Russ Feingold, who was very outspoken about fees when he was in the Senate, also made some money MADem Mar 2016 #27
That's why they call it "Legal" bribery kristopher Mar 2016 #33
Who calls it that? griffi94 Mar 2016 #36
Not on an industrial scale like she, and ChairmanAgnostic Mar 2016 #44
So you get to decide griffi94 Mar 2016 #48
No, I get to decide which candidate is so slimy and corrupt ChairmanAgnostic Mar 2016 #51
Then get Bernie thru the primary griffi94 Mar 2016 #53
I thought that was a given 2pooped2pop Mar 2016 #14
Not exactly, money influences people though Babel_17 Mar 2016 #16
Do you even have to ask? Raster Mar 2016 #17
Let's ask a former Democratic President what he thinks.... Segami Mar 2016 #18
The speeches are actually worse than the campaign money, because it's a personal payment. Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #19
Harry S. Truman too Babel_17 Mar 2016 #20
HST benefited from quite a few more book sales after 1957 and his wife was not MADem Mar 2016 #25
The way you lay that out--you make it sound (falsely) like Carter has no problem when HE MADem Mar 2016 #26
I would remove the word "basically" from the OP BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #87
K & R AzDar Mar 2016 #21
Kick and R BeanMusical Mar 2016 #22
... Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #23
I don't think they were legal. AtomicKitten Mar 2016 #28
I think it's mostly Republicans who think that ... Onlooker Mar 2016 #30
"Hillary preached her moderate message to a diverse range of people" bvar22 Mar 2016 #124
I think Jimmy Carter would agree that they're bribes kristopher Mar 2016 #31
Nope I think they were a Buzz cook Mar 2016 #34
$160+ million into Hillary and Bill's private account. delrem Mar 2016 #40
Obama took more money from corporste donors in 2004 and 2008 Buzz cook Mar 2016 #123
So you agree with Justice Roberts Mnpaul Mar 2016 #59
Nope Buzz cook Mar 2016 #121
All that money isn't doing them much good Mnpaul Mar 2016 #125
Because it's more than just money. Buzz cook Mar 2016 #132
it might not technically be a bribe, but it buys access lakeguy Mar 2016 #37
no. nt DesertFlower Mar 2016 #38
She and her husband got paid better for speaking fees than any nobel laureate, delrem Mar 2016 #41
$160+ million, between her and Bill. It's payola/graft. delrem Mar 2016 #39
Whether intentional or defacto... sendero Mar 2016 #43
Clinton’s Speaking Fees — No Corruption; Quite Generous Sancho Mar 2016 #47
You should post this once a day... LAS14 Mar 2016 #116
Unsuccessful in not sounding crazy. Justice Mar 2016 #55
It isn't Just HRC fredamae Mar 2016 #56
No all american girl Mar 2016 #58
I think this sounds like RW crazies. seabeyond Mar 2016 #61
+1 JoePhilly Mar 2016 #73
It is not what I think. It is a straight up fact that that is how business is done. Bonobo Mar 2016 #64
Of course, nobody pays that kind of $$$$ for nothing. CharlotteVale Mar 2016 #67
Wrong question. . . does anyone seriously think they are NOT bribes? pdsimdars Mar 2016 #69
What about Bill's speaking fees when she was a Senator, SOS, and preparing to run for Pres? Skwmom Mar 2016 #77
Industrial strength. nt cherokeeprogressive Mar 2016 #82
Hell yes. nt Live and Learn Mar 2016 #85
She is scared of releasing the transcript for exactally this reason! Logical Mar 2016 #86
NOT thinking that would be laughable. (nt) Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #88
Of course they were. nt thereismore Mar 2016 #90
Speaking fees are normal when people do public speaking gollygee Mar 2016 #92
So where's the "public" part? Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #94
Speaking for groups is called public speaking, even if it's a private organization.n/t gollygee Mar 2016 #95
In this case, "private" groups of capitalists investing in a product in expectation Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #97
Yes, Hillary is a corrupt bribe taker BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #101
$250k per speech is pretty normal gollygee Mar 2016 #110
Live in your fantasy world if you like BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #111
Naw. The capitalists invest in her out of love for democracy and the working class. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #93
What else could they be? Ed Suspicious Mar 2016 #102
Nope! She's just one helluva great speaker! RufusTFirefly Mar 2016 #103
Of course they are Politicalboi Mar 2016 #104
well,I doubt it was for her lovely speaking voice,personality. wendylaroux Mar 2016 #106
Yes. And the Clinton Foundation "charity" as well. nt noamnety Mar 2016 #107
Of course, but it's legal. HassleCat Mar 2016 #108
It seems improbable that... LAS14 Mar 2016 #112
This message was self-deleted by its author LAS14 Mar 2016 #113
I'm not so sure they're even legal. HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #115
Nope, she was underpaid uponit7771 Mar 2016 #117
Large companies regularly give... LAS14 Mar 2016 #118
How silly. Not at all. nichomachus Mar 2016 #120
They're all criminals who are paid by corporations Dem2 Mar 2016 #122
Yes peacebird Mar 2016 #126
Yes. leveymg Mar 2016 #127
Does anybody not think that? tularetom Mar 2016 #128
it's so blatant, besides; makes one wonder amborin Mar 2016 #129
Yes. 100%. Legal, but completely unethical. IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #130
Yes nt. Luciferous Mar 2016 #131
What else could they be? She's no banking expert. senz Mar 2016 #134
I suppose Lady Gaga and Jerry Seinfeld gave speeches about music & comedy to Goldman-Sachs. randome Mar 2016 #146
Oh, is Hill an entertainer now? senz Mar 2016 #149
YES TheFarseer Mar 2016 #140

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
45. I've heard it said she's the most corrupt candidate since the Boss Tweed era.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 06:46 AM
Mar 2016

...and I really can't disagree. And the only reason she might win is that Trump is a clown, possibly worse. Sadly, we're at a low ebb in our nation's political life.

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
60. Obama should fire his speechwriter because they did him a diservice.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:14 AM
Mar 2016

From the Teapot Dome to Watergate, history tells us we should always be vigilant and demand that our public servants follow the highest ethical standards. But the truth is that the kind of corruption that is blatant, of the sort that we saw in the past, is much less likely in today’s politics. And the Justice Department and the media work hard to keep it that way. And that’s a very good thing. So we don’t want to romanticize the past and think somehow it’s a difference in the people being elected.

(Note: This is assume nothing is done....)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/10/remarks-president-address-illinois-general-assembly

Fuddnik

(8,846 posts)
5. I didn't see him accepting $250,000 speaking fees for that.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:22 AM
Mar 2016

I did see him protecting his constituents jobs.

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
13. This one really rubs me the wrong way..
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:41 AM
Mar 2016
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/06/insurer_achmea_paid_bill_clint/

WHY does this one matter? Slovakia voted to go back to single payer after just a few years and achmea (insurer) and trade deal... prevented that...

Read it!

especially the award here... read between the lines...

http://www.italaw.com/cases/2564

Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2013-12 (Number 2). Case type: International Investment Agreement.

http://www.italaw.com/cases/417

Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13 (formerly Eureko B.V. v. The Slovak Republic). Case type:

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
46. He could not legally accept fees while a Senator...
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 06:47 AM
Mar 2016

so he didn't ... but he did get "favors" and "influence" from companies and organizations when he voted the way they wanted.

Hillary, and many others do not make speeches until they are private citizens.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
91. There are all those illegal foreign donations going into his campaign he hasn't explained...
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:54 AM
Mar 2016

to the FEC.

jimmy_crack_corn

(79 posts)
119. Just looked at FEC ALL versus HUGE
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:20 PM
Mar 2016

Okay so looked at FEC for 2 year summary 2015 2016 Individual Refunds (sort by state) http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do

So ALL THOSE FOREIGN DONATIONS !! EQUALS SIX for a total $1,275 wow !!!

Note: Hillary had 146 refunded foreign donation refunded for a total of $56,700

So if Bernie is "ALL those" foreign donations then Hillary were a HUGE number of "ALL Those" foreign donations ( almost 25 times as many donations and a $$$ amount of almost 45 times as much !! Let's not to mention the untraceable PACS which don't get refunded

People in glass houses should not throw stones !!

REZNIKOVSKY, KIRIL CONTRIBUTION REFUND RA'ANANA 43203 11/01/2015 $50
REZNIKOVSKY, KIRIL CONTRIBUTION REFUND RA'ANANA 43203 11/01/2015 $50
MORRISSEY, KELLY CONTRIBUTION REFUND WINDSOR ON 00N 8S- 4C CANADA ZZ 00000 12/29/2015 $250
GUTRY, KYLIE CONTRIBUTION REFUND LONDON 000SW GREAT BRITAIN ZZ 00000 01/04/2016 $300
WIKANDER, BENGT CONTRIBUTION REFUND STOCKHOLM 11432 SWEDEN ZZ 00000 01/27/2016 $500
STENDER, NEAL A. CONTRIBUTION REFUND TAI PO N.T. 00000 HONG KONG ZZ 00000 01/31/2016 $125

Hillary's list too long 146 refunded in past 2 years

blm

(113,037 posts)
114. Most male speakers on the circuit make even more than that, including Trump.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:33 PM
Mar 2016

There MUST be something wrong with this picture. Why do even high-powered women speakers make so much less than male speakers on that level?

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
7. How much money did they give to him or his foundation for his vote?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:24 AM
Mar 2016

Does sanders even have a foundation?

 

Gwhittey

(1,377 posts)
12. Yea this is what a Sentator is suppose to do,
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:40 AM
Mar 2016

He/She/It works on behalf of people of their state that elected them. F35 was something Senators had to support for the good of his voters. He even admits he felt it was mistake but people in his State wanted him to vote this way. Now how can you think this is same as someone like Hillary taking money to run for NY senator and voting yes on a law that makes it harder for average person to file for bankrupt. So she voted to protect the rights of a Bank over that of her voters. And this same bill she pushed Bill to veto because when she was 1St lady she saw it was bad. But when a Bank donates money to her warchest she changes her mind...And you saps think money in politics does not effect anything. OH right only the Republicans are corrupted by it.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
35. Clinton's campaign chairman
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:48 AM
Mar 2016

Owns the lobbying firm which represents Lockheed. And Boeing. And Saudi Arabia.

They same firm has bundled hundreds of thousands for Clintons Campaign.

So.

Relatively speaking there's no contest..

Fuddnik

(8,846 posts)
3. Yes, Yes, and...
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:20 AM
Mar 2016

Fuck Yes!!!!!

That's exactly what the fuck they are. It goes beyond the appearance of impropriety.

It's fucking legalized bribery and corruption.

Avalon Sparks

(2,563 posts)
135. Hi Fiddnik
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:03 AM
Mar 2016

Are you a Compliance Officer? We use that phrase about impropriety a lot......

I'm appalled at the US Politicians violating the FCPA without blinking an eye.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
6. Nope.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:24 AM
Mar 2016

When Sanders retires and goes on the circuit, after cutting a seven-figure deal for a book, you won't, either.

wilsonbooks

(972 posts)
15. Not everyone can be bought
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:45 AM
Mar 2016

After President Truman retired from office in 1952, he was left with an income consisting of basically just a U.S. Army pension, reported to have been only $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an "allowance" and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year. When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the president, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."

MADem

(135,425 posts)
24. That is just not correct. He had a wealthy wife--he always said he "married up."
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:26 AM
Mar 2016



His income was much more than his pensions. Bess's people were among the wealthiest families in town, and after her father killed himself, they moved into her wealthy grandparents' stately Victorian home and that was her address (and HST's, eventually) for the rest of their life.

He went home for good to Independence to live in Bess's grandmother's/mother's house after he left Washington. He always spoke sweetly to his mother-in-law, even though she rarely had a good thing to say about him! He adored his wife--who apparently burnt the "juciest" letters he wrote to her when they were apart. When his daughter found Mama tossing the letters in the fire, she said "Mother, what are you doing? Think of HISTORY!" and Bess replied "I AM."

And his needs and wants were few. But he did supplement his income but good--he wrote books and they sold quite well. Everything published before 1972, he got a piece of...after that, he was dead and Bess got the royalties for another ten years. Their only daughter (who only died eight years ago-she was bitten by the writing bug, too) got the scratch after that:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/203941.Harry_S_Truman

You didn't see him engaging in any charitable pursuits after he left office; he was done, that wasn't in fashion at the time, he was older, pushing seventy--at a time when seventy wasn't "the new sixty"--it was seventy-- he'd had enough, and he RETIRED. He wrote (and was admirably compensated for) those books, he strolled around, he oversaw the HST Library construction. But he wasn't a spring chicken when he went home to Independence, either--so I don't understand why you're comparing him, an older POTUS from an era nearly three quarters of a century ago, to a younger former FLOTUS and SECSTATE from more modern times.

smh!

You might be shocked to learn that Jimmy Carter makes some HELLA money on the speaking circuit between getting involved in all of his humanitarian missions, election oversights, Habitat work, Sunday School, and what-have-you--and he's also one of the most prolific "President - Authors" ever.

But hey, whatever. Some people are ready to retire. Some people aren't. Some people are popular and can command large speaking fees. Some people aren't.

And some people are constrained by Senate and/or House Ethics rules from getting out on the circuit. That's life.

I'm sure she knows how to "Shake It Off" when people accuse her of nefariousness. She's been nothing but a hard working public servant all her life, but some people love to nitpick, criticize, and make false assumptions about her.

It's why she's so well prepared for this next chapter in her life. Petty little slings and arrows don't faze her in the slightest. I'm looking forward to her Presidency--I think she'll do brilliantly.

Cartoonist

(7,314 posts)
42. That sure is a lot of obfuscation.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 06:38 AM
Mar 2016

Neither Truman or Carter voted for another bill after they retired. If Hillary retired, I wouldn't begrudge her for a single dime.

The problem is she has now been bought and paid for. And those that bought her don't have the best interests of the little people.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
49. No, it isn't. It's not fair to demand that a younger person behave like an elderly ex-president.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 06:55 AM
Mar 2016

In fact, it makes no damn sense. Whatsoever.

There's no "obfuscation" at all, except perhaps the OBFUSCATION between speaking fees and Citizens United campaign contributions that happened in this very thread.

Oh, and one more thing--unless HRC goes back to the legislature, she will never again "vote for another bill."

smh.

Cartoonist

(7,314 posts)
50. I'm not talking about young and old
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 07:04 AM
Mar 2016

I'm talking about in and out of government. Making money out of government is ok. Accepting bribes while in government is corrupt.

Don't bother arguing that Hillary was not in office when she received the big paychecks. She never left her involvement in government.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
52. Now you tell me what I'm "allowed" to argue?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 07:20 AM
Mar 2016

Well, I'll leave you to argue with yourself, then!

Maybe you can explain to yourself why it's ok for Carter to take speaking fees! After you explain to yourself that CU's funding of election contests is not the same as an honorarium!

Heckuvajob!

LOL!!!

cannabis_flower

(3,764 posts)
63. Question?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:17 AM
Mar 2016

Did Carter go out and accept a lot of speaking fees between the time he was Governor of Georgia and President? Or was it after he was President and no longer in public office?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
72. Governor Carter ran for POTUS straight away. He finished his term and hit the campaign trail.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:02 AM
Mar 2016
It's all readily available to you online with a quick search:

Carter, a Democrat raised in rural Georgia, was a peanut farmer who served two terms as a Georgia State Senator, from 1963 to 1967, and one as the Governor of Georgia, from 1971 to 1975. He was elected President in 1976, defeating incumbent President Gerald Ford in a relatively close election; the Electoral College margin of 57 votes was the closest at that time since 1916.


He was, in effect, fired rather decisively by the American people after his one and only term.

I voted for him. Not enough people did, though.

cannabis_flower

(3,764 posts)
75. I'm not sure I get your point.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:07 AM
Mar 2016

He was governor and then he ran for president. And? So did he make a bunch of secret speeches he got paid for in between?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
78. What part of he finished his term and then ran immediately for POTUS is confusing to you?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:14 AM
Mar 2016

Clinton left FLOTUS and went to the Senate. From the Senate she went immediately to State.

After she left State, she had a couple of "private citizen" YEARS. Not months--years.

And what she did during that time is her business. It's not a matter of public record. It's not 'secret' -- it's just that you were not invited, and neither was I. But thousands of people were, so it's not terribly "secret," now, is it?

Do keep struggling with this for as much as you'd like, though. It gives her detractors, like you, something to pick at while she eats Bernie's lunch, and it makes no difference at all to her supporters.


Darn your bad luck, eh?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
89. Apparently? Seems like her formal announcement was much later than that. IIRC.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:44 AM
Mar 2016

Like, say April 12.





Nope. Doesn't bother me. Not even slightly.

I wouldn't care if she was the entertainment at children's birthday parties, either.

What part of earning do you have a problem with? People announce they're running for POTUS, and suddenly, they're not ALLOWED to do anything else? Because you say so?

smh!

Keep at it, though, if you think it will pay a dividend. Knock yourself out--stay busy! That whole "negative campaigning" thing really helped Sanders out last Tuesday!




https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/02/28/sanders-supporters-turn-negative-clinton/


http://www.salon.com/2016/03/16/feel_the_bern_indeed_sanders_takes_the_low_road_with_nasty_clinton_tweet_undermining_the_promise_of_his_campaign/

Avalon Sparks

(2,563 posts)
136. Close relatives receiving any type of benefits is also considered accepting bribes....
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:11 AM
Mar 2016

Under the US Foreign Corrupt Practice Act... For example Bill's 'speaking fees' while Hillary was a Senator. The Clintons have made a fortune from private industry..... That's straight up buying influence money, no question about it.

cannabis_flower

(3,764 posts)
62. Don't give me that.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:15 AM
Mar 2016

Presidents consult with their party members and then promote the proposed legislation. Why do you think they call it Obamacare? They also have the power to veto bills they don't like.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
79. It's not my fault if you are unfamiliar with how government functions.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:19 AM
Mar 2016

My comment was entirely accurate, so I WILL "give you that"--because it is factual.



VETO and VOTE both have the very same letters in the two words--but they do NOT mean the same thing.

Legislators VOTE.


Chief Executives VETO.

cannabis_flower

(3,764 posts)
81. You focus on veto and skip the rest of what I said
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:32 AM
Mar 2016

they also propose legislation and campaign for their legislation by making speeches. They lobby congress and meet with congressmen - mostly from their own party but also from the other party. No they don't vote and yes they have veto power, but they have a lot of other power they exercise.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
83. You need to pull the string way back to post 42,after which you jumped in with your rather churlish
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:50 AM
Mar 2016
"Don't give me that" (YOUR words) commentary.

That's where voting entered the conversation.

Facts matter. You keep focusing on arcane, nitpicky issues, though, rather than policy positions or anything of interest to persuadable voters. Do keep that up, if that makes you happy. I think it's a good use of your time, myself.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
84. Hillary Clinton is still in politics I think
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:06 AM
Mar 2016
Good Lawd. She is NOT a retired president. She and Bill took every advantage of HIS being a retired president tho.

This is a big reason why she is sorely tainted as a candidate. She is compromised --in a way that Sanders is not, if you really care about PROGRESS.

How can you even try to defend this? It's one of the obvious things about Hillary. Never mind the subterranean sleaze.

Hillary sold out, and so she should go out gracefully with her pile. Not embark on a figurehead job that will do nothing but kick the can down the road for people who care about fundamentally changing this country for the better.

We need a leader.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
139. Look--if you can't follow the convo, don't bother.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:24 PM
Mar 2016

Truman and Carter are the "elderly ex-presidents" in the scenario.

Hillary Clinton was a youthful Senator and she's now a middle aged former SECSTATE.

And she's not "sorely tainted." She is the most qualified candidate in the race. She's been leading since she matriculated at Wellesley, and she's never stopped.

Get used to this phrase: Madam President.



marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
141. Golly, I'm so dumb I must have said something YOU disagree with
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:32 PM
Mar 2016

Your comment is arrogance on steroids.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
142. Like I said, if you cannot follow the conversation, just don't bother.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:09 PM
Mar 2016

You completely missed the point, and now you're doubling down.

It's not 'arrogant' to point that out.

Have a nice day.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
142. Like I said, if you cannot follow the conversation, just don't bother.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:09 PM
Mar 2016

You completely missed the point, and now you're doubling down.

It's not 'arrogant' to point that out.

Have a nice day.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
147. Why did you post twice then?
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:44 PM
Mar 2016

I'd rather think you accidentally burped than you felt compelled to post twice.

cannabis_flower

(3,764 posts)
54. The thing about writing books is
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 07:25 AM
Mar 2016

that everyone knows what is in the book. Anyone can buy the book. Anyone can go to the public library and check it out and read it.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
57. Yep. And libraries buy the books, usually several copies if they're good ones, so that
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 07:40 AM
Mar 2016

people can check them out and read them.

Of course, in the fifties and sixties, people with money to spare didn't spend it on cable TV or internet, because such things didn't exist--but they did spend their money on nice books. The media used to not ruin the endings, like they do nowadays, or tell all the good tid-bits and spoil the fun.

Good hardcovers meant you were "educated." Every well-to-do family that cared about their children's education had a set of encyclopedias as well as a quality dictionary to help the kiddies with their homework!

cannabis_flower

(3,764 posts)
65. Again..
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:23 AM
Mar 2016

Truman wrote the books after he was President and retired. And they weren't secret transcripts like Hillary has.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
68. So? You're not allowed to write a book until AFTER you finish your POTUS term?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:55 AM
Mar 2016

Obviously, Bernie has disqualified himself. Just as well.







cannabis_flower

(3,764 posts)
71. Actually..
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:00 AM
Mar 2016

that's not what I meant . Although Truman did write it after he was president. But again, books aren't secret, there's a public record. For example Obama wrote a book before he was president and of course, the Republicans took excepts and used it against him. There is no public record of Hillary's speeches.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
74. Those weren't public speeches. Why would there be a public record?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:05 AM
Mar 2016

Is there a public record of your dinner conversation last night? Of course not.

She was a private citizen, engaged in a private pursuit.

If she were speaking as a public official, that would be one thing. But she wasn't.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
98. I think you're wishin' and hopin' for something that just isn't there.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:13 AM
Mar 2016

That seems to be the theme of late--hope that something bad happens to your opponent, in order to win.

That's a future you can believe in?

cannabis_flower

(3,764 posts)
99. If there's nothing there why doesn't she release them
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:20 AM
Mar 2016

I know, they weren't public record, but does she have some kind of agreement with them not to release them? Or is she just worried about what she said being misinterpreted. Or did she really say something that she doesn't want the general public to hear. If there is nothing there?



MADem

(135,425 posts)
100. Why don't we dig through your private files? What do you have to hide?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:36 AM
Mar 2016

See, when people looking for dirt start asking for stuff to which they aren't entitled, they are not satisfied if they don't find what they're looking for.

They think it gives them "the right" to demand more.

Next thing you know, they're rifling through your sock drawer.

Do you seriously think, that at an event attended by THOUSANDS, that if she said something untoward, that everyone there would keep quiet about it?

Sometimes when you hear hoof beats, you need to realize it's a horse, and not a zebra.

cannabis_flower

(3,764 posts)
109. I'm not running for President of the United States
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:51 AM
Mar 2016

or any other office for that matter. I'm not a public figure. Perhaps Anthony Weiner didn't think anyone would be interested in his dick pictures either. Or maybe he knew, after all, he didn't use his real name, right?

133. Sander's integrity speaks for itself...
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:51 AM
Mar 2016

... sorry that the other candidate (and pretty much all of Congress) is corrupt.

But, we have to start somewhere.

We're damn lucky to have Senator Sanders willing to try to improve the lives of We The People.

Go Bernie!!!

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
8. Bribes, investments, etc...
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:24 AM
Mar 2016

They definitely expect a return on their investment so yes they are bribes. Ask a Hillary supporter and they'll contort themselves over and over to say those are just normal speaking fees, and that Hillary is above doing anything improper, and it's just right-wing lies, and that we can't point to one instance where she changed her vote.

Well, she certainly changed her stance on the bankruptcy bill after taking money.

And those speaking fees were after she was out of office, so the bill won't come due until she's back in...

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
9. What do they get from Larry the Cable Guy! Lady Gaga?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:28 AM
Mar 2016
http://zfacts.com/2016/02/clinton-speaking-fees/

Now take a quick look at a Talk at Goldman Sachs (GS), or at civil-rights-leader John Lewis talking with the CEO of GS, or the CEO of the NAACP or LGBT Professionals speaking at GS. Obviously GS hopes for good publicity and the speakers hope to influence GS. If you’re looking for conspiracies, this is a very silly place to look for them.


$80,000 Malcolm Gladwell Author: Blink, and Outliers
$100,000+ Bill Maher Left commentator MSNBC
$150,000 Condilezza Rice Sect. of State, W. Bush
$200,000+ Jerry Seinfeld Comedian, actor, writer
$200,000+ Hillary Clinton Sect. of State, Obama
$200,000+ Lady Gaga Singer & empowerment speaker
$200,000+ Larry The Cable Guy Radio personality, comedian
$400,000 Ben Bernake Ex-Fed chairman, Bush, Obama

Some will skim this page, see it supports Hillary, and make unsupported accusations. But it is ridiculous to let such false claims go unchallenged, and it is tearing the Democrats apart.

Goldman Sachs paid her $225k in 2013, about $10k less than her average in the list above, and the lowest fee paid in 2013.

It would be foolish to try to bribe someone with a slightly low-ball payment for services. And of course there is a far simpler explanation: She was just earning money by giving speeches. Money for her expenses (sure she lives, but she also works incredibly hard), for the campaign and for her Foundation. End of theory. We’d all love to win the lottery, and she won a decent sized lottery—the speaking-fee lottery. So she cashed in her winning ticket. Wouldn’t we all?

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
32. Hillary took $21,468,000 in speaking fees 2013-2015.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:32 AM
Mar 2016
(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

    Total Bill and Hillary Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
    TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
    $153,669,691.00 $210,795.19 729
    Total Bill Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
    TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
    $132,021,691.00 $207,255.40 637
    Total Hillary Clinton speech income, April 2013 thru March 2015:
    TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
    $21,648,000.00 $235,304.35 92

More at link above


Access is everything; paid access like this is legal corruption.
To those who say she has been vetted, I say, "really?"

Avalon Sparks

(2,563 posts)
137. It's insane to me Kristopher...
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:35 AM
Mar 2016

I'm a Compliance Officer for a large foreign based company that does business in the US. Under no circumstances would I approve a request to pay a government employee a "speaking fee". The most we would pay is their travel costs. To do so could easily be construed as a violation of the US FCPA (Foriegn Corrupt Practice Act).

It's unbelievable to me that people cannot recognize the money is being spent to buy influence. The Clintons work only for the highest bidders, and have used their political power solely for personal gain in the form of enriching their personal bank accounts.

I can almost understand why politicians feel they have to get money from wealthy backers in order to run for office or get reelected, it's almost impossible to hold run any campaign without some moneyed donors. It's wrong, but it's the way the system is set up now.

But my God, when boatloads of cash are being funneled into your personal bank account, there's some serious kick backs due. Undeniable.

cannabis_flower

(3,764 posts)
66. Again..
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:27 AM
Mar 2016

Bill Maher, Condilezza Rice, Jerry Seinfeld, Lady Gaga, Larry the Cable Guy and Ben Bernake.. none of those people are running for office. If they were to run for office less than 2 years after getting those speaking fees, we'd want to know what they said.

 

coyote

(1,561 posts)
10. Of course they are bribes
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:29 AM
Mar 2016

A tech company that paid Hillary Clinton $335,000 to give a speech in 2014 settled a dispute last week with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the corporation repeatedly bribed foreign political officials to promote its products and gain a business advantage.

Qualcomm, a wireless telecommunications company based in San Diego, paid $7.5 million to settle the SEC probe. In a statement announcing the settlement last week, the commission accused the company of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act between 2002 and 2012 by hiring unqualified relatives of Chinese officials and providing them with luxury gifts that had “no valid business purpose.”

http://freebeacon.com/issues/company-that-paid-hillary-clinton-335k-for-speech-slapped-with-sec-bribery-suit/

EndElectoral

(4,213 posts)
105. Anyone who doesn't think they are bribes has blinders on?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:44 AM
Mar 2016

If I give my boss 10K and say I'd like to have a raise, I think I stand a better chance of getting that raise.

Avalon Sparks

(2,563 posts)
138. I agree The Clintons are on the grift....
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:47 AM
Mar 2016

However many FCPA cases are settled for large fines, it's a cash cow for the US government.



griffi94

(3,733 posts)
11. I believe she was a private citizen at the time
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:33 AM
Mar 2016

So paid speaking engagements were a job
Al Franken wrote about doing corporate speaking
engagements because they paid well.

Same as writing a book and doing a book tour.
As far as releasing the transcripts as a private citizen speaking
at a private event as a paid speaker, she's not under any obligation
to release that to the public.

It's not illegal to earn a lot of money.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
27. Russ Feingold, who was very outspoken about fees when he was in the Senate, also made some money
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:03 AM
Mar 2016

"on the circuit" while he was a private citizen.

Lots of people do. It's fairly easy money if you can put up with people wanting to regale you with dull stories, do grip and grin pictures, sign a few autographs, maybe eat a rubber chicken dinner.

The ones who complain the loudest about this are often the ones who are in low demand, though...

griffi94

(3,733 posts)
36. Who calls it that?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:51 AM
Mar 2016

Besides the website you linked to.
You?

As far as I know speaking engagements aren't illegal.
Even high paying ones to groups that some people may not like.

Lots of public figures speak at events for money. Even speaking at commencement ceremonies
pays pretty well.
I understand you dislike Hillary but she's not obligated to
release any transcripts of a private transaction to Bernie anymore than she's obligated
to tell you how much her shoes cost.

As I stated she was a private citizen at the time. She wasn't in office or under any official
obligations.
And it's not illegal to earn a lot of money.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
16. Not exactly, money influences people though
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:48 AM
Mar 2016

It's a matter of perception, and how you see the world. I've previously posted the clip from Caddyshack wherein Rodney Dangerfield hands Brian Doyle Murray, who's supervising a golf competition, a wad of money while saying "Keep it fair". Murray wasn't bribed, but he was kindly enough disposed to Dangerfield to give a putt a lot of time to sink into the hole.

Politicians have become blind to this. Great things just happen to them because they live in a world with great people. Tables are available in restaurants, seats on jets are just there, and their kids find these great jobs.

"What a wonderful world"

They live in a bubble.

Raster

(20,998 posts)
17. Do you even have to ask?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:55 AM
Mar 2016

"Oh hell ya, let's pay Hillary Clinton $275,000 to listen to her regale us with her Bill and Hill White House stories."

Yeah, that happened.

 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
18. Let's ask a former Democratic President what he thinks....
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:56 AM
Mar 2016



ding,..ding,...ding.....Jimmy definitely thinks its 'legal bribery'.....


 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
19. The speeches are actually worse than the campaign money, because it's a personal payment.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 02:00 AM
Mar 2016

But it's a huge problem too. But the campaign money is sort of more regulated and reported.

The speech money is just a personal payment. It's like the ultimate revolving door bribery where people float in and out of government collecting payments and then governing.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
20. Harry S. Truman too
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 02:04 AM
Mar 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

Upon leaving the presidency, Truman returned to Independence, Missouri, to live at the Wallace home he and Bess had shared for years with her mother.[188] Once out of office, Truman quickly decided that he did not wish to be on any corporate payroll, believing that taking advantage of such financial opportunities would diminish the integrity of the nation's highest office. He also turned down numerous offers for commercial endorsements. Since his earlier business ventures had proved unsuccessful, he had no personal savings. As a result, he faced financial challenges. Once Truman left the White House, his only income was his old army pension: $112.56 per month.[189] Former members of Congress and the federal courts received a federal retirement package; President Truman himself ensured that former servants of the executive branch of government received similar support. In 1953, however, there was no such benefit package for former presidents,[190] and he received no pension for his Senate service.[191]

Truman took out a personal loan from a Missouri bank shortly after leaving office, and then set about establishing another precedent for future former chief executives: a book deal for his memoirs of his time in office. Ulysses S. Grant had overcome similar financial issues with his own memoirs, but the book had been published posthumously, and he had declined to write about life in the White House in any detail. For the memoirs, Truman received only a flat payment of $670,000, and had to pay two-thirds of that in tax; he calculated he got $37,000 after he paid his assistants.[192] However, the memoirs were a commercial and critical success;[193][194] they were published in two volumes in 1955 and 1956 by Doubleday (Garden City, N.Y) and Hodder & Stoughton (London): Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Year of Decisions and Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Years of Trial and Hope.[195][196]

The former president was quoted in 1957 as saying to then-House Majority Leader John McCormack, "Had it not been for the fact that I was able to sell some property that my brother, sister, and I inherited from our mother, I would practically be on relief, but with the sale of that property I am not financially embarrassed."[197] The following year, Congress passed the Former Presidents Act, offering a $25,000 yearly pension to each former president, and it is likely that Truman's financial status played a role in the law's enactment.[190] The one other living former president at the time, Herbert Hoover, also took the pension, even though he did not need the money; reportedly, he did so to avoid embarrassing Truman.[198]

MADem

(135,425 posts)
25. HST benefited from quite a few more book sales after 1957 and his wife was not
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:50 AM
Mar 2016

poor, either. The memoirs went through multiple editions, I imagine first editions in good shape are worth some money nowadays.

Much of that poor mouthing is hyperbole, though the pension did make life easier for him. He always drove a new car (he favored Chryslers).



And he made a few public appearances in his post-Presidential career, not many, but a few. He didn't like Ike:

Truman remained active in American politics after he left the White House. Eisenhower's handling of the presidency annoyed and angered Truman, who regularly criticized the administration's policies and politics in public appearances. He actively campaigned against Eisenhower in 1956. The personal relationship between the two men, already strained after Ike declared in 1952 that he would run for the Republican nomination, deteriorated throughout the eight years of Eisenhower's presidency. Truman had better relations with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. He expressed reservations about Kennedy in 1960—thinking him too young and too Catholic to be a successful Democratic presidential nominee—but once in office, Kennedy and his wife charmed the ex-President. Truman felt even more comfortable with President Johnson, with whom he had enjoyed cordial relations while Johnson was on Capitol Hill. He never got along with President Nixon, however.
Truman found time to relax and rest in his post-presidential years. He was never far from his favorite bourbon and enjoyed clanking glasses with the old friends, political allies, and dignitaries who came through Independence. While his health permitted, he took regular walks around town. He traveled some, including a 1953 auto trip to New York during which a policeman stopped him on the Pennsylvania Turnpike for making an illegal lane change. It was Truman's only attempt at a long drive after leaving the presidency.
Harry S. Truman died on December 26, 1972, of old age rather than any specific sickness. Bess vetoed plans for an elaborate state funeral and arranged an Episcopalian service in the auditorium of the Truman Library. She had a Baptist minister and the Grand Masonic leader of Missouri conduct the proceedings. Truman was buried in the courtyard of his presidential library, with a simple stone epitaph that he himself had prepared. It listed the dates of his birth and death, the birth of his daughter, and his public offices from district judge to President of the United States. When Bess joined him ten years later, her marker read "First Lady of the United States."


http://millercenter.org/president/biography/truman-life-after-the-presidency

MADem

(135,425 posts)
26. The way you lay that out--you make it sound (falsely) like Carter has no problem when HE
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:59 AM
Mar 2016

is being legally bribed, apparently....? But you're mixing apples and oranges.

He's talking in that clip about Trump, who self-funds is stinking rich. And he's talking about "the erroneous ruling of the Supreme court."

He's talking about campaign donations, funding contests via agencies like Citizens United -- not speaking fees.

Apples and oranges. Context, context, context. It's so important to be accurate when having these conversations.

FWIW, everyone on our side (Democratic candidates for POTUS) agrees that CU is BAD law. So DING DING DING all the live-long day.

We're not going to overturn it between now and November, though.

 

Onlooker

(5,636 posts)
30. I think it's mostly Republicans who think that ...
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:10 AM
Mar 2016

... but there are some Sanders supporters who think that as well.

That said, too bad Bernie didn't give some paid speeches. At least Hillary preached her moderate message to a diverse range of people. Bernie basically never challenged himself until now. If he had sought out paid speaking gigs, he might have been able to share his message sooner with groups of then like-minded Vermonters.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
124. "Hillary preached her moderate message to a diverse range of people"
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 07:14 PM
Mar 2016

LOL.
To a "diverse group of people" who could pay her $250,000 for an hour of her time.
That is not "diverse" at all.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
31. I think Jimmy Carter would agree that they're bribes
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:22 AM
Mar 2016

This is specific to Citizens United but I'm confident that the $21,000,000 in speaking fees knowing that she would be running for President would elicit the same response.

Jimmy Carter: U.S. Is an 'Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery'
The 39th president said the 'Citizens United' ruling 'violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system'

BY DANIEL KREPS July 31, 2015

Former President Jimmy Carter had some harsh words to say about the current state of America's electoral process, calling the country "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery" resulting in "nominations for president or to elect the president." When asked this week by The Thom Hartmann Program (via The Intercept) about the Supreme Court's April 2014 decision to eliminate limits on campaign donations, Carter said the ruling "violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system."

SIDEBAR
Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter: The Unchanging of the Guard »
The 39th president also voiced concerns that the limitless flow of campaign cash severely favors those already in office. "The same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members," Carter said. "So now we've just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election's over."

Carter's comments come as the 2016 presidential race tops 20 candidates, most of them Republicans. "The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves," Carter said. "Somebody’s who's already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who's just a challenger."

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also disagreed with the controversial Citizens United ruling that opened up campaign spending....
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-with-unlimited-political-bribery-20150731

Buzz cook

(2,471 posts)
34. Nope I think they were a
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:34 AM
Mar 2016

necessary way to raise funds for a presidential run.

If they weren't bribes when Obama was taking money from corporations why is it bribery when Clinton does it?

delrem

(9,688 posts)
40. $160+ million into Hillary and Bill's private account.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 05:34 AM
Mar 2016

Don't you tell me about Obama doing anything like it!
That's bullshit. It's totally unfair, unjustified bullshit.

Buzz cook

(2,471 posts)
123. Obama took more money from corporste donors in 2004 and 2008
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 05:02 PM
Mar 2016

Than any candidate, including Hillary Clinton.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing

Big industry contributors
Investment banks, hedge funds and Wall Street

"Obama received more donations from employees of investment banks and hedge funds than from any other sector, with Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase among his biggest sources of support.

"Individual donors included Ken Griffin, the multi-billionaire founder and chief executive of Chicago-based Citadel Investment Group, one of the world's biggest hedge fund companies," the UK's Financial Times reported July 17, 2007.[57]

"Obama's fundraising was more heavily dominated by financial professionals than other main candidate. He received $160,760 from employees of Lehman Brothers, just over $100,000 each from employees of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase and $61,125 from Citigroup employees," the Times reported.


http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/barack-obama-d/4148b26f6f1c437cb50ea9ca4699417a

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/28/president-obama-spent-684-million-to-get-elected.aspx







Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
59. So you agree with Justice Roberts
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 07:53 AM
Mar 2016

in his Citizens United decision? All that money doesn't necessarily corrupt politics?

Buzz cook

(2,471 posts)
121. Nope
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:43 PM
Mar 2016

I think that disarming oneself in the face of the conservative money machine is a sure way to lose.

Case in point, if Sanders had as much money as Rubio, Bush, or Cruz, the race would be much closer.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
125. All that money isn't doing them much good
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 07:53 PM
Mar 2016

Why didn't the conservative money machine save their campaigns?

Buzz cook

(2,471 posts)
132. Because it's more than just money.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:45 PM
Mar 2016

You have to be a good campaigner with a message that resonates. Or don't you believe that?

lakeguy

(1,640 posts)
37. it might not technically be a bribe, but it buys access
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 05:06 AM
Mar 2016

that regular citizens can't get. then corporation X has a problem and uses that access to help solve said problem. think about it...the sum for one speech is a rounding error for many corps and the return on investment is astronomical. i would do it too if i was a CEO. doesn't mean it's right though and those sums should have to be returned if any person decides to run for public office. if you have even the slightest notion you will run for office in the future, you shouldn't take that kind of money.

just because they also pay other figures not in govt. doesn't mean it isn't still buying access to those that are in govt. it would be pretty obvious if they paid the Clintons (or whoever) 250k and lady gaga 10k. no one is THAT stupid, except maybe Trump. i would actually pay govt. officials slightly less than what they normally get, so then you can have the defense that you see in this thread. "they actually paid her less than her average rate so how is that a bribe!?!"

delrem

(9,688 posts)
41. She and her husband got paid better for speaking fees than any nobel laureate,
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 05:45 AM
Mar 2016

any people of high distinction, in all of history.

As Khloe Kardashian said: "So dope"

delrem

(9,688 posts)
39. $160+ million, between her and Bill. It's payola/graft.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 05:31 AM
Mar 2016

What else can it be, since she and Bill are nothing else than life-long politicians?

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
47. Clinton’s Speaking Fees — No Corruption; Quite Generous
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 06:50 AM
Mar 2016
http://zfacts.com/2016/02/clinton-speaking-fees/

Over the negative din of politics, it can be hard to hear what’s positive. Hillary Clinton has given $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity (see below). That’s 26 times as much as she made on her three Goldman Sachs speeches combined, or 50% more than she made on her 51 speeches in 2014 and 2015. Before presenting the details, let me summarize.

Her fees were not the least bit unusual given her stature.
Over 100 lesser known Americans are also in the $200,000+ category.
The Goldman Sachs fees were below her average fee.
She gave $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity.

Charging Goldman Sachs less would have just meant more profits for them and less for charity.
There is simply no evidence, or logic, supporting the idea that she would sell out her whole career and deceive her huge base of supporters with a fake proposal to rein in Wall Street (a proposal that Elizabeth Warren supports). That she would do all this in return for three below-average fees from Goldman Sachs is beyond absurd.


According to the Washington Post, Bill Clinton has contributed speaking fees to their foundation 73 times and Hillary Clinton 15 times. Hillary’s contributions include one address to Goldman Sachs and another to JP Morgan Chase. In total, Hillary donated something over $17.6 million. Contrary to what you may have heard, their foundation is highly efficient with only 11% overhead, and has provided $2,000 million dollars to the poor and needy.

fredamae

(4,458 posts)
56. It isn't Just HRC
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 07:34 AM
Mar 2016

What we're witnessing here-in broad daylight-IS the Corp Purchase of The Peoples Government. The question remains...Has the final installment already been paid?

Revolving Doors/DC Corruption
Reaganism
CITIZENS UNITED Part I and Part II
Wall Street Crimes Unpunished
Banks Bigger/More Powerful that Ever
The population of the Lobbyist Industry.
Etc, Etc, Etc
The Numbers Don't Lie re: Environmental Impact from the Mental Disorder; Greed-Economic Impact-Rising Numbers of Poverty Stricken-The Systematic and Intentional Austerity Driven Legislation....Then we have Gerrymandering, Voting Machine Discrepancies-A systematic Shredding (congress/state houses) of the Constitution, Lies, Destruction of the VRA, Womens Rights, Sales of Public Lands to Corp, NAFTA/CAFTA/TPP/TITP/TATP, The Fairness Doctrine, The Telecommunications Act, Repeal of Glass Steagall, Patriot Act, the systematic reduction of wages, the systematic INCREASE in wealth at the top, Deregulations. Monopolization of "everything", Privatization....All of this has been in a downward trend for Decades...Systematic and Incremental so "we" don't raise too big of fuss and those who cried Foul were sparse and easily destroyed. Etc, Etc, Etc

Now, however---seems they don't try to hide it anymore. Those of us who called the "alarmists" crazy.....followed MSM because we still believed That was News and besides---"That can Never Happen In America" ...Right?
Think of this a giant Jigsaw Puzzle and start connecting the pieces to see what you're looking at.
HRC is "featured" here...But pick Any lawmaker (except Sanders) the names are interchangeable.

We cannot Focus on nor blame Just her...If we do, we are ignoring the importance of Flipping Congress. It's the center-fold of that jigsaw puzzle.



Of course..this is just my opinion

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
64. It is not what I think. It is a straight up fact that that is how business is done.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:17 AM
Mar 2016

It's an investment, not a bribe.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
92. Speaking fees are normal when people do public speaking
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:59 AM
Mar 2016

Of all the weird imagined supposed Hillary scandals, this might be the least credible. She isn't as far left as Bernie, so I didn't vote for her, but she isn't actually a corrupt bribe-taker. She is not without issues, such as her claim that freaking Nancy Reagan, whom (if I remember correctly) laughed about AIDS, was some kind of anti-AIDS activist, but she isn't a corrupt bribe-taker. And Bernie, while a great candidate, is not perfect either. We need to stop thinking in such huge dichotomies, such as that if we prefer Bernie, Hillary must be awful and Bernie must be perfect. They're just human beings in an election.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
97. In this case, "private" groups of capitalists investing in a product in expectation
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:11 AM
Mar 2016

of a healthy return on their money.

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
101. Yes, Hillary is a corrupt bribe taker
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:38 AM
Mar 2016

Tell us about some other dreadfully boring public speakers who collected almost $10 million for 41 speeches to Wall Street and other corporate interests in a single year (2013).

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
110. $250k per speech is pretty normal
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:53 AM
Mar 2016

I googled "celebrities speaking fees" or something and found an article about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511523717

She charges about the same or less than Keanu Reaves.

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
111. Live in your fantasy world if you like
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:12 PM
Mar 2016

My guess is that Keanu Reeves never collected anything close to $10 million in a year for speeches.

It is bribery. And I'm done with you.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
103. Nope! She's just one helluva great speaker!
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:42 AM
Mar 2016

Haven't you heard her? An Orator Extraordinaire.
Some people just aren't sophisticated enough to recognize true greatness.
Thank heaven, Goldman Sachs did!

By the way, the American Bankers Association is another group that recognizes true talent.

US Congressman Says Bankers Should Find Way to 'Neuter' Sen. Elizabeth Warren

U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, a Republican from Missouri and senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, on Wednesday described Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as the "Darth Vader of the financial services world" and said bankers should find a way to "neuter" her.

Luetkemeyer, who made the remarks at a meeting of the American Bankers Association, is part of a group of lawmakers identified by the Center for Public Integrity as "especially solicitous to the banking industry," Slate noted in 2014. He has raised significant campaign funds from the the finance, insurance, and real estate sector, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.


Years from now, historians will be mentioning Hillary Clinton and Blaine Luetkemeyer in the same breath as Martin Luther King and Robert Ingersoll.
 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
104. Of course they are
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:43 AM
Mar 2016

Her supporters will ignore it till it's too late. Just like they ignore the cheating and the lies.

wendylaroux

(2,925 posts)
106. well,I doubt it was for her lovely speaking voice,personality.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:44 AM
Mar 2016

or vast knowledge of whatever group she was talking to.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
108. Of course, but it's legal.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:51 AM
Mar 2016

Our elected officials, including most Democrats, set it up this way so they could rake in money from special interests. This is how they gain power and influence, keep getting reelected, pal around with celebrities, and generally live well. Yes, it's a protection racket. There have actually been statistical analyses showing the ratio of return in terms of tax breaks and regulatory forgiveness, compared to contributions, and it's a very good investment. Oh, no, not a good investment for ordinary people who want clean water, safe consumer products, fair mortgages, etc. It should be criminal. It kills people and ruins lives as surely as any ordinary crime such as rape, murder, armed robbery, etc. But it's legal, and it will remain legal, because we keep electing people who support the system.

LAS14

(13,777 posts)
112. It seems improbable that...
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:25 PM
Mar 2016

... anyone who gave $17 million to charity would be driven to betray their values by $250,000 honoraria.

Response to LAS14 (Reply #112)

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
115. I'm not so sure they're even legal.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:35 PM
Mar 2016

The only thing keeping them 'legal' so far is lack of evidence of a specific quid pro quo. Won't take much for that evidence to surface...an overlooked email, a recording, an amnesty offer....

LAS14

(13,777 posts)
118. Large companies regularly give...
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:39 PM
Mar 2016

... money to members of both parties. I expect it gives them some access, some shoulder rubbing. I don't deny that there may be influence going on and in some places downright bribery (which I hope we're mostly catching an prosecuting.... but maybe not). But it's ludicrous to associate the mere fact of a contribution with bribery. Obama got tons of money from Wall Street. Sanders benefited from business donations to the Senatorial election committee (don't remember exact name).

I should add that no way do I think Hillary has been influenced by campaign donations or speaking fees. It's hard for me to understand why people don't trust her. She comes across to me as having exceptional integrity and caring, albeit with more desire for privacy than is handy for a person in political life.

nichomachus

(12,754 posts)
120. How silly. Not at all.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:45 PM
Mar 2016

Wall Street sends me $100,000 checks all the time -- no strings attached-- just because they're really nice people. "Here's $100,000, Nicho. Have a nice day." Sometimes they draw a little heart on the check.

Dem2

(8,168 posts)
122. They're all criminals who are paid by corporations
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:45 PM
Mar 2016

I've seen this sort of post several times over the past few months. Popular concept here.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
128. Does anybody not think that?
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 08:40 PM
Mar 2016

Nice bank ya got there, Blankfein. Be a shame if somethin was to happen to it.

 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
130. Yes. 100%. Legal, but completely unethical.
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:52 PM
Mar 2016

I think the reality is she is a LAWYER at her heart, and when she speaks, she says what her clients want to hear, which is why she won't release transcripts. As a private person, whatever. But since she is owned by special interests, it makes her a crappy public servant.

My opinion. Your mileage may vary.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
146. I suppose Lady Gaga and Jerry Seinfeld gave speeches about music & comedy to Goldman-Sachs.
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 02:18 PM
Mar 2016

They were paid the same amount as Clinton, by the way.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"
[/center][/font][hr]

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Does anybody else think H...