All celebrities make a lot of money doing speaking engagements

[gollygee]

And Hillary has been a huge celebrity since being First Lady.

http://www.businessinsider.com/celebrity-public-appearance-fees-2012-11?op=1

My God, Avril Lavigne gets $250k to speak someplace. The article is from 2012 and her star has fallen so hopefully she's not getting that much anymore, but still, even she at one point made that much to speak somewhere. This isn't a weird thing.

[casperthegm]

1. How many of them are running for president? n/t

[PoliticAverse]

4. Well there's a celebrity leading in the Republican primary... n/t

[casperthegm]

15. HRC is not a celebrity

She is a former senator and Secretary of State. That she is not held to a higher standard by those within our own party shows me how far to the right we've fallen, in my opinion. So many things that used to be scoffed at, seen by us as the GOP selling out to corporate America now seem to be the norm within our own party. It's gotten to the point where I can barely recognize it any more.

[gollygee]

53. Celebrity just means someone who is well known

And a lot of politicians make money doing speaking engagements, though Hillary is up at the top of the list (after Trump.)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590

It's reasonable to complain about politicians in general making money in this way, but it isn't something odd about Hillary. It's normal.

[casperthegm]

57. Should it be normal?

Who has the ability to demand better? We do. I swear, apathy and indifference to "well, that's just the way it is" will be the undoing of the Democratic party.

[gollygee]

60. I don't think it should be normal

I think we should do away with Citizens United and the like, and I like the idea of making rules about politicians and how they make money. However, this is not an issue specific to Hillary. It's like in Casablanca going into a casino and saying, "I'm shocked there's gambling going on." It isn't shocking. This is what goes on in politics.

I wish Bernie was going to win the nomination because either he or Hillary could beat Trump, and I do think he'd do whatever was in his power to change these kinds of things. But he's very unusual in the political world. Everyone else is more like Hillary.

[islandmkl]

81. that comparison might not sit well with a certain group here...eom

[PoliticAverse]

82. Trump humpers? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

5. Exactly. How many accept money from entities whose largess can be repaid in access and policy?

'Everyone makes money speaking' is one of the dumbest analogies out there.

[NWCorona]

2. Celebrities don't shape American policy

[Dr Hobbitstein]

7. Sure they do.

Bernie is a celebrity. Obama is a celebrity. Al Franken is a celebrity (and was before he was a Senator, too).

[NWCorona]

10. No they are famous politicians

Franken might be the only exception to the list you gave.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

16. And Hillary's celebrity status COMES from being a famous politician.

Famous actors are celebrities. Famous politicians are ALSO celebrities.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/celebrity

[NWCorona]

20. I understand the distinction but the two aren't the same.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

22. Celebrity is an encompassing term.

Just means a famous or celebrated person.

Politicians, actors, musicians, et al can all be celebrities.

[NWCorona]

23. But are you saying that Kim Kardashian has the same pull on policy

Than an elected official? There is a difference.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

24. No, she's a celebrity because she had sex with Ray J on video tape.

Hillary and Bernie and Obama are celebrities because of their policies and limelight on the political stages.

But, Kim K, Hillary, Bernie, and Obama are all celebrities. Only 3 of them happen to shape policy. The other shapes Kanye West's ego.

[NWCorona]

27. I can except that as long as you make the distinction between between the two subsets

[NWCorona]

29. Do you mind if I ask what your doctorate is in?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

41. It's the name of the music electronics company I own.

A portmanteau of Dr Frankenstein (because of my knack for experimenting with different electrical circuits) and Hobbit (due to my short stature).

I'm not a doctor, although I'm an electrical engineer.

[NWCorona]

48. That is a good play on words!

Thanks!

I was a budding Tesla when I was a kid lol! I probably should have stuck with it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

77. It happened one night at a show.

My bassist had just bought new cables and some other stuff, and the jack on his bass broke during the first set. I didn't have a soldering iron handy (and couldn't make it home and back to get one quickly), so on stage I sat down, clipped his cable, and twisted the wires from the cable directly to the bass output wires, then secured everything with some duct tape that the bartender had laying around. It was a great live MacGyver moment.

We finished the next two sets with no issues. Someone in the crowd yelled "he's like Dr Frankenstein", to which my freakishly tall bassist replied, "no, he's Dr. Hobbitstein". And the (local) brand was born.

I only deal with local musicians and shops around town, and I don't sell many effects pedals (as they are pricey), but I'm known to the local cats, and they come to me for tech work all the time.

[NWCorona]

79. Great story

And love the MacGyver reference!

[All in it together]

3. Are we hiring celebrities for President now?

Clinton and Trump

[gollygee]

11. They are both celebrities

As was Ronald Reagan.

[EndElectoral]

6. Avril Lavigne isn't running for President

[PoliticAverse]

19. I think we should be thankful Kim Kardashian isn't running. n/t

[gollygee]

69. She is 35 now!

I had to check her age.

If Trump can get as far as he's gotten, I wouldn't assume anything in the future. Celebrity status counts for way too much.

[PoliticAverse]

74. Kanye has already announced his intention to run for President, we could be looking at 3

presidential candidates in this picture:

[gollygee]

76. Kanye is 38! Plenty old enough! N/t

[Armstead]

8. Did she need the money? Was it wise for appearances sake? BAD political judgement

The Clintons are veeeerery fat and happy. The family income has been in the upper stratosphere for many years. They didn't need the money.

If nothing else, it was very bad political judgement to rake in a few millions more in pocket change when she was considering a run for the Presidency.

It was not considering even the appearance of impropriety -- or so arrogant and out of touch to think that no one would pay attention.

[wendylaroux]

9. well hell,we can surely think of a better celebrity then big H to run then,

any ideas out there? how about Meryl Streep?She can sing too!

[gollygee]

13. She'd probably make an awesome President! :) n/t

[wendylaroux]

18. lol,yea,actually she probably would. nt

[NWCorona]

17. I'd take Oprah as well

[wendylaroux]

21. yea,good one,kind soul there.

[Buns_of_Fire]

64. I'll go with Larry the Cable Guy (crossover appeal, y'know!).

And I'm thinking Lady Gaga for the VP slot. (Seriously, she probably WOULD be pretty good -- if she could be convinced to take a YUGE cut in salary and public esteem.)

[TBF]

12. Is Avril Lavigne solely getting her money from Wall Street? K&R nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Ronald Reagan was a celebrity too.

Just sayin'.

[Art_from_Ark]

33. And as I recall, he took some flack

for accepting $2 million in speaking fees from some Japanese companies after he left office.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Thank God the flack didn't come from Democrats. Otherwise they might be called

hypocrites.

[UglyGreed]

25. I'm sure they don't feel the

need to hide their words like Romney and Hillary has.

[arcane1]

26. Wow, the excuses get lamer by the day.

[gollygee]

31. It's just a fact

It isn't weird that people pay her to speak at their events, and the amount is even normal. I wish people would pay me $250k to speak at their events. That would be awesome.

She makes money the way celebrities make money. If you don't like having a celebrity running for president, I can see that. Her celebrity status helps get her a lot of money obviously, and it also gets her a lot more media attention and votes. Her celebrity status is part of her success. But she isn't doing anything unusual.

[ljm2002]

28. Get back to us when one of them runs for President...

...and when they do, I'll be right there demanding to see what they said to certain groups, and that most certainly includes any of the biggest banks.

Of course, other "celebrities" have not been in the same positions of power that Hillary Clinton has, either. She was the most powerful FLOTUS ever, with her husband giving her an active role in health care policy among other things; she was Senator from New York; and of course she was the Secretary of State, often considered the second most powerful position in government -- certainly a very exalted position. Somehow, that puts her past the "celebrity" status in my book, and instead vaults her into the rarefied strata of "very powerful people".

Show us the transcripts, Hillary. We're waiting.

[gollygee]

34. Donald Trump makes the most

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590

[ljm2002]

38. And of course, I think we should see what he said too...

...but since he's a Republican, I have no standing to make that demand.

Should he become their candidate, then I will certainly encourage him as well to release his transcripts, in the interest of informing the public about both candidates.

But Hillary can release her own transcripts any time she wishes, and her decision whether or not to do that should certainly not be contingent on whether a member of the crazy Republican party does or not.

[gollygee]

43. Al Gore made $100k per engagement in his heyday according to the article n/t

[ljm2002]

59. Well if he were running...

...I would want to see what he said, too.

These people are running for President of the USA, not CEO of some company (although some might find that assertion debatable...). We have a right to know what positions they take when speaking to the wealthy and powerful.

And Al Gore was never my favorite candidate, although I do of course admire his work on climate change.

[gollygee]

61. If I remember correctly

I was hoping Howard Dean would run that year.

[GreatGazoo]

30. I can give money to lots of people lots of the time

but if I give money to a cop who is about to write me a speeding ticket I probably expect something in return, eh?

[gollygee]

40. I can see people complaining in general about politicians making money at engagements

But I don't understand why Hillary is singled out. Trump makes much more per engagement.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590

[GreatGazoo]

71. Trump isn't selling access to the government because he has none, yet.

Clinton already has people bidding for positions in her cabinet. Larry Fink for one.

[onecaliberal]

32. Those people are NOT running for the highest office in the land. They aren't asking me to trust

their judgment. Good lord, are you really comparing an performer to someone running for POTUS? That is truly frightening.

[gollygee]

35. Donald Trump makes $1.5 million, compared with Hillary's $200k to $250k

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590

[onecaliberal]

36. Hillary makes MILLIONS, we went through this yesterday.

AND: I am NOT now and NEVER will be for Trump.

[gollygee]

37. She makes $200k to $250k per engagement

Donald Tump makes $1.5 million per engagement.

And there are lots of politicians in that article. I can see people complaining that politicians make money doing speaking engagements, but I don't understand why she is singled out.

[onecaliberal]

39. I seriously don't care. That fascist fucking pig is not going anywhere.

[gollygee]

42. Yeah that's just the point

It isn't about her making money doing what lots of politicians (and washed up celebrities of all sorts) do. It's just that people don't like her.

I'm going to copy and and paste that post in case it gets deleted so my post here makes sense: "I seriously don't care. That fascist fucking pig is not going anywhere."

[onecaliberal]

44. People don't like her because she LIES, and because she benefits from the access.

All the while, she has no tolerance for the least of us. People also don't want their children being sent to foreign land to die, and she will no question be jumping into more war.

[gollygee]

46. She does seem like much more of a hawk type than Bernie, no doubt in my mind.

My complaint is really just about people being shocked about her being paid to speak. I like Bernie better between the two, but I get annoyed by complaints about something normal being unusual and horrible. IMO, either the practice in general is bad and should be changed or not, but this isn't specifically a Hillary thing.

[onecaliberal]

47. Okay, that comment is sending you to the ignore list. You obviously don't have a clue what his

stance is on foreign policy. Or did you forget all the comments your candidate make about his foreign policy. You people want it every which way. We don't support liars and people who change position every 5 seconds.

[gollygee]

50. What? I voted for Bernie

I said Hillary is much more of a hawk than Bernie. I don't understand this.

[casperthegm]

45. Shouldn't the Democratic party be held to a higher standard?

Since when has our mantra been, "well everyone else is selling out, why shouldn't we?"

I just thought the Democratic party considered itself to be for the people rather than for the corporations and backed it up by not selling out to those corporations via acceptance of millions in speaking fees and acceptance of super pacs. And if that's not the case, shouldn't it be?

[gollygee]

49. There are two trains of thought here:

1. We should not play by that game.

And

2. We have to play by the game to get into power, and once we're in power we might have a chance to change things. If we don't play by the game, we'll never get into power and then we can't have any effect on things.

I can see how people would choose either of those two positions. Hillary is definitely in the second group and Bernie is in the first. I like the idea of not playing their game, but I am sad to say that it doesn't appear to be effective.

[casperthegm]

55. #2 counts on faith that change will actually happen

Sorry to say that I don't have a lot of faith in Hillary and the rest of the status quo folks to say "hey, let's pass some campaign finance laws, right after I give this speech to GS."

Sorry, could resist that last part, but in all seriousness, come on, we know that they take advantage of option #2 and put on a nice show about how they don't like the rules. And then continue to take advantage of it.

Option number one is captures the spirit of what the Democratic party is, or at least should be. That it's so easily dismissed troubles me. It will work if we, as the Democratic voters, demand it from our candidates. Or vote for the one who advocates for it. Unfortunately, it appears that the Democratic party members just don't care enough about it.

[gollygee]

58. I agree with you there.

And I did actually vote for Bernie, mostly for that reason -because he doesn't play the game. I do appreciate that, I just don't see this as a fair thing to make specifically a Hillary issue. This is the norm. It is reasonable to attack the norm, just like with campaign finance, but it isn't specifically Hillary. It's just as much Al Gore and whoever else (including a ton of Republicans.)

[Loudestlib]

51. The only people that will buy this crap are the ones blinded by their own motives.

Here is a video of John Boehner passing out checks from tobacco companies on the House floor. Tobacco companies love celebrity politicians.

[link:

|

[revbones]

52. Politicians don't.

And it's disingenuous to think that Goldman Sachs doesn't expect something in return.

[gollygee]

56. They do

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590

It is reasonable to complain about policiticans in general making money in this way, but it is not a specific Hillary issue. It is the norm.

[revbones]

70. Nobody said it was specifically a Hillary issue other than she did it and it's an issue.

Just because others do something bad or illegal doesn't make it ok for Hillary to do it.

[gollygee]

72. It isn't illegal.

Unless someone can show that she's actually giving people positions because they've paid her for a speaking engagement.

[revbones]

80. Sheesh. I didn't say that was illegal

I was referring to the tired excuse that Hillary supporters use when she does do something illegal (email scandal) or when she does something bad (speaking fees without releasing transcripts).

[Jackie Wilson Said]

54. So Hillary is the only politician to be paid to do speeches? Other than Bernie Sanders

I dont think there is a single one who doesn't do this or wouldn't do it if offered.

Maybe Franken wouldn't, maybe a couple from the past, names escape me.

Nothing to do with right and wrong, but the reality we live in a capitalist system which rewards power and those close to it.

[gollygee]

63. Yeah many politicians do it

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590

It's the capitalist system. It would be nice to see stuff like this change, but it's just normal at this point. It isn't specifically a Hillary issue.

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. Well to be fair; Avril Lavigne was stone cold broke as well when she moved from the White House.

[gollygee]

66. ROFL

OK I had to laugh at that.

[Kelvin Mace]

67. How many times do we have to explain the difference

between a pop star and a presidential candidate?

It is dishonest posts like this that make me certain I want nothing to do with HRC supporters.

[gollygee]

68. It isn't just pop stars

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590

It's common among politicians too. And I voted for Bernie. I just think it's dishonest to act like this is some strange and unusual thing Hillary is doing. It's the norm. We can talk about changing the norm, but that still doesn't make Hillary making money at speaking engagements unusual. And it is very difficult to change the norm in anti-capitalist ways.

[Kelvin Mace]

91. Corruption doesn't stop being corruption just because "almost everybody does it".

[gollygee]

92. I'm saying that it isn't specifically a Hillary issue.

Whether it's corrupt or not is a reasonable debate, but if it's corrupt then almost every politician is corrupt. Bernie is an exception in this case; Hillary is not.

[Kelvin Mace]

94. Political donations are an "investment" in politicians

And one that pays handsomely for those who can spend the big bucks.

The fact that everyone has a price is not what shocks me, rather it's how low the price generally is. A paltry tens of thousands of dollars can translate into millions, even billions of dollars in new profits. Goldman-Sachs invested millions in HRC, and they expect to get, and will get that money back in multiples.

No one gets money without an expectation of something in return. The more the money, the greater the expectation. I can "give" Bill Shatner $10,000 grand (plus expenses) and he'll come to my birthday party. I can give him $100,000 and he'll sing to me. The more I pay, the more I get, limited only by people's greed or need.

With politicians, I get access, introductions, special treatment, but more often, active inertia. When some rule or law is under consideration that will cost me money, every day it is delayed for comment, referral back to committee, referral back to committee, for feasibility studies, GAO scoring, CBO scoring, etc; is another day I am not paying that extra cost. While giving a job to a contributor's family member, or a big contract to the donor's company makes some corruption apparent, and even prosecutable, "active inertia" is almost impossible to prove since there are so many creative ways to appear to do something while doing nothing.

[demwing]

73. What a lousy argument!

"It's legal" and "A lot of people do it" says NOTHING about whether the action is ethical.

In 1800, it was legal to own another human, and a lot of people did it. Does that make slavery ethical?

I'm not equating corruption with slavery. I'm just noting that identical justifications were used to defend two unethical and immoral actions, thus illustrating the inherent logical flaws of that particular argument.

[basselope]

75. It's not about the AMOUNT, its about WHAT SHE SAID.

*DERP*

[gollygee]

78. I've read a lot here about the amount.

Right here in the thread somewhere someone said it was because she'd made X amount of dollars overall. And I read in another thread the total she made for 41 speaking engagements, and it came out to $250k an engagement, which is pretty normal.

But anything she says at any time during a campaign is free game.

[basselope]

87. The amount is indicative of what she said.

People don't pay large sums of money to celebrities to say things they don't want to hear.

The fact that they did it more than once.. means they loved themselves some Clinton.

[islandmkl]

83. there might be a 'slight' difference in paying

a freaking ENTERTAINER 250K to entertain you with some kind of speech...

and a person with some amount of political clout who might, just might, be able to help your industry get around some potential, or current, hurdles...

[gollygee]

84. Read through the thread and you'll see that a lot of politicans do this

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590

[islandmkl]

85. changes my post...not in the least...'they all do it..' can go a long way to excuse a lot of things

[lakeguy]

86. Two problems with that...

First, as others have pointed out, Avril Lavigne isn't running for public office and certainly won't be making the kinds of decisions that can greatly affect those she is getting money from. They aren't buying the kind of access from people like her as they are with Hillary and other politicians.

Second, it wouldn't be very smart for Goldman Sachs and other corps to only pay politicians to come and speak. In fact it would be pretty stupid. By paying people outside of govt., it gives them the prefect cover for buying access to important people. It also protects those they are giving the money to. They can say the exact same thing the OP did, and many people will unfortunately believe them.

[pdsimdars]

88. But Bernie had nothing to hide so he released his transcript. .. . . That's the difference.

Hillary is afraid to because she knows it will hurt her with the public.

[Jitter65]

90. Few would pay Bernie that kind of money to speak because they just aren't interested in what he has

to say. He is not insightful, interesting, or in-depth. He is superficial, unrealistic, non-forgiving, recalcitrant, and deceitful.

[pdsimdars]

89. Refer to Elizabeth Warren story about Hillary and the bankruptcy bill . . . . . .

[Jefferson23]

93. None of those people will be appointing a US Attorney General of DoJ, none of those people will be

responsible for influencing policy on WS reform..if they were they would be just
as compromised as anyone who takes WS money.

I am astonished by the OP's rationalizing away the serious nature of money in politics.

[stevenleser]

95. Logic is not appreciated if it doesn't promote Bernie over Hillary. But...

... you are 100% correct.