2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDoes 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?
jfern
(5,204 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)...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)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 todays politics. And the Justice Department and the media work hard to keep it that way. And thats a very good thing. So we dont want to romanticize the past and think somehow its 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
msongs
(67,381 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)I did see him protecting his constituents jobs.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)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)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)to the FEC.
jimmy_crack_corn
(79 posts)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)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)Does sanders even have a foundation?
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)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.
senz
(11,945 posts)Thank you!
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)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)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)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.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)When Sanders retires and goes on the circuit, after cutting a seven-figure deal for a book, you won't, either.
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)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?
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)On February 9th 2015. Apparently she continued to do paid speeches even after she was running for president. That doesn't bother you either?
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-six-figure-speaking-fees-that-hillary-clinton-received-after-leaving-the-state-dept-2015-5
MADem
(135,425 posts)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/
Cartoonist
(7,314 posts)I failed
MADem
(135,425 posts)Avalon Sparks
(2,563 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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)Your comment is arrogance on steroids.
MADem
(135,425 posts)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)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)---
MADem
(135,425 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I'd rather think you accidentally burped than you felt compelled to post twice.
MADem
(135,425 posts)cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)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)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)Truman wrote the books after he was President and retired. And they weren't secret transcripts like Hillary has.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Obviously, Bernie has disqualified himself. Just as well.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)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)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.
cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)Romney's 47% remark. But then it was. And it mattered.
MADem
(135,425 posts)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)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)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)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?
ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)... 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)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)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 youre 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. Wed all love to win the lottery, and she won a decent sized lotterythe speaking-fee lottery. So she cashed in her winning ticket. Wouldnt we all?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)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/
More at link aboveTotal 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
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)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)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)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)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)However many FCPA cases are settled for large fines, it's a cash cow for the US government.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)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)"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...
kristopher
(29,798 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)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.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Not from venture capital, Wall Street and worse.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)who somebody accepts employment from?
Good luck with that.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)That voting for her is impossible.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)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)"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)ding,..ding,...ding.....Jimmy definitely thinks its 'legal bribery'.....
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)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)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)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 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)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.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)They're bribery. No qualifier needed.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Legal adjacent maybe.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)... 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)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)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.
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. "Somebodys 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....
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)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)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)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)in his Citizens United decision? All that money doesn't necessarily corrupt politics?
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)Why didn't the conservative money machine save their campaigns?
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)You have to be a good campaigner with a message that resonates. Or don't you believe that?
lakeguy
(1,640 posts)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!?!"
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)any people of high distinction, in all of history.
As Khloe Kardashian said: "So dope"
delrem
(9,688 posts)What else can it be, since she and Bill are nothing else than life-long politicians?
sendero
(28,552 posts)... yes.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)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.
LAS14
(13,777 posts)... until November.
Justice
(7,185 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)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
all american girl
(1,788 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It's an investment, not a bribe.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)thereismore
(13,326 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)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)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)of a healthy return on their money.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)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)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)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.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)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.
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)Her supporters will ignore it till it's too late. Just like they ignore the cheating and the lies.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)or vast knowledge of whatever group she was talking to.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)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)... anyone who gave $17 million to charity would be driven to betray their values by $250,000 honoraria.
Response to LAS14 (Reply #112)
LAS14 This message was self-deleted by its author.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)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....
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)LAS14
(13,777 posts)... 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)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)I've seen this sort of post several times over the past few months. Popular concept here.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Nice bank ya got there, Blankfein. Be a shame if somethin was to happen to it.
amborin
(16,631 posts)what is yet to be
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)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.
Luciferous
(6,078 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)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]
senz
(11,945 posts)Somehow I must have missed it.