Hillary speaking fees - why is it bad?

[thewop]

If a huge company offers hillary over $500k to do a speech, why shouldn't she take it? Would any of us turn that down? I'm pretty sure I'd just ask: What do you want me to say?

She shouldn't have to defend taking the money. She should say..."don't you wish you could...?"

 

[Nat Algren]

Is she that dynamic of a speaker? Or were they payments for services rendered? Or was she receiving money for services about to be rendered? I thought she was for the little guy?

 

[lucas80]

Is she that dynamic of a speaker? Or were they payments for services rendered? Or was she receiving money for services about to be rendered? I thought she was for the little guy?

Why does being for the little guy mean you can't make money? Organizations paid for a highly experienced person to offer her opinions to them. They weren't forced to pay Hillary, or only choose Hillary as a speaker.

 

[Nat Algren]

Why does being for the little guy mean you can't make money? Organizations paid for a highly experienced person to offer her opinions to them. They weren't forced to pay Hillary, or only choose Hillary as a speaker.

Her opinions or access? This is a woman who, while Bill was Governor, made a gazillion $$$$ in the commodities market....something like a 90% success rate while most people get their clocks cleaned. Then she walks away from that lucrative part time job. I'm thinking Don Tyson of Tyson Foods had a hand in it. As a public servant, she should not be cashing in on our office. If you don't demand more of our office holders, you deserve the corruptness you get.

 

[ping72]

Because republicans hate capitalism. They can't stand that someone could put themselves in a position to earn more than the common person. We should share the wealth.

Errrr.....

 

[Hawk_82]

I dislike hillary but liked her answer to this question. who cares that she made lots of money for privledges that she gained by being first lady. those are the same privledges she is tapping into trying to become president.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Because republicans hate capitalism. They can't stand that someone could put themselves in a position to earn more than the common person. We should share the wealth.

Errrr.....

But I have heard hrc state she is just like you and me and was broke...and that big companies are bad. So is she speaking out both sides while Bill makes her a pearl neklace?

 

[IMCC965]

You guys have no clue. She and Bill took money for favors. It's well-documented.

 

[Herkmeister]

If a huge company offers hillary over $500k to do a speech, why shouldn't she take it? Would any of us turn that down? I'm pretty sure I'd just ask: What do you want me to say?

She shouldn't have to defend taking the money. She should say..."don't you wish you could...?"

Troll!!!!!!!!!

 

[BubsFinn]

If a huge company offers hillary over $500k to do a speech, why shouldn't she take it? Would any of us turn that down? I'm pretty sure I'd just ask: What do you want me to say?

She shouldn't have to defend taking the money. She should say..."don't you wish you could...?"

The problem is, she was selling something other than a 45 minute speech.

 

[thewop]

The problem is, she was selling something other than a 45 minute speech.

I believe you're likely correct, but she isn't bound to do anything. I'm not accusing Hillary of being honest by any means, but I think it's totally unfair to simply hear the amount she was paid and arbitrarily say "that's too much!" and then jump all over her for taking it. It's not our decision, it's the free market, and if they felt the market value for HRC warranted that money, well, that's up to them. Do I think it's too much? Of course, but I don't blame HRC for taking it when they were willing to pay it.

Those who want the free market to go away are voting Bernie Sanders, he's the one candidate that wants to make that happen.

 

[Titanhawk2]

If a huge company offers hillary over $500k to do a speech, why shouldn't she take it? Would any of us turn that down? I'm pretty sure I'd just ask: What do you want me to say?

She shouldn't have to defend taking the money. She should say..."don't you wish you could...?"

Means she is not poor like she portrays herself

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Plain and simple, this is one of the legal ways to buy politicians.

It has NOTHING to do with capitalism - either good or bad. Except maybe as a cautionary tale to remind us that the market doesn't really put the true value on things. At least if you think the "thing" being valued here was what Hillary had to say.

Obviously Hillary is not the only politician bribed through this vehicle. Lots of politicians are supported this way by their "customers."

The good thing about this form of bribery is that it's fully out in the open.

The bad thing about this form of bribery is that not enough people recognize that it is bribery.

Another "respected" form of legal bribery is to have a candidate write a book (or have someone write one for him) and then the bribers can line up to buy thousands of copies. Not all the money goes to the politician and it may not be so obvious who the bribers are. But you can be sure the bribers find a way to let the politician know who helped push their typically worthless book onto the Best Seller list.

BTW, some of these speakers donate a significant chunk of the fees to charity. That might mean they aren't really being bribed. But you have to pay attention to the charity they are donating to. Don't be surprised if it is connected to either the original briber, or to the politician's campaign in some way, or that it somehow makes its way back to the politician. Sort of laundering the bribe.

 

[swagsurfer02]

I don't have a problem with it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This is one of my biggest laments about politics these days. So many things go on that people of an earlier era would have known were corruption, that we now accept because they are legal. You raise this concern and instantly you'll have multiple people - across the political spectrum - asking "what law did he break." And the answer, too often, is "no law" - but the reason is that our lawmakers or courts have specifically made that form of corruption legal.

As much as we might wish it to be true, being legal doesn't necessarily mean being right or moral. These quite open instances of bribery are good examples.

Most of us do have some sort of moral compass. But for too many Americans, the part of that moral compass that's supposed to signal corruption functions very poorly, if at all.

More like a moral ouija board than a compass.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[1] I'm not accusing Hillary of being honest by any means

[2] ...it's the free market, and if they felt the market value for HRC warranted that money, well, that's up to them. Do I think it's too much? Of course, but I don't blame HRC for taking it when they were willing to pay it.

[3] Those who want the free market to go away are voting Bernie Sanders, he's the one candidate that wants to make that happen.

[1] Excellent line. Well done.

[2] If that's the free market, then we should be very clear that the free market fosters corruption.

[3] Yes, Bernie is against the corruption of unbridled big money in our political process. Are you saying he's wrong?

 

[Herkmeister]

Looks to me like opinions are based on the position from which you view this.

Let's be straight up, $600,000 for a speech has ties to it regardless of who makes the speech and who pays for it. Abraham Lincoln wouldn't bring this fee today.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I dislike hillary but liked her answer to this question. who cares that she made lots of money for privledges that she gained by being first lady. those are the same privledges she is tapping into trying to become president.

I didn't see or hear her answer. Can you link it?

 

[thewop]

[1] Excellent line. Well done.

[2] If that's the free market, then we should be very clear that the free market fosters corruption.

[3] Yes, Bernie is against the corruption of unbridled big money in our political process. Are you saying he's wrong?

1. Thanks!
2. yes, it can, but I'm not accusing Hillary of that based solely on the amount of money.
3. Bernie is wrong on almost everything, but I'll agree with him that big money needs to be minimized in our political process (most Americans would). I don't think we need to go all out Bernie to fix that. Oddly, the candidate in the race that probably agrees most with Bernie on that point is Trump. He knows it's wrong and openly says it shouldn't be like that, but plays the game because that's how you get things done. Personally, I believe both Bernie and Trump would make disastrous presidents. My biggest problem with Bernie is that everything he wants to do leads to higher cost of living for everyone, less chance for the working class to move up the chain, and wishes to dis-incentivize those best positioned to provide jobs (a terrible idea if everyone gets free college). There's just no sense in most of what Bernie says. His rant about foreign trade last night contradicted itself at every turn, hence the look on Hillary's face. My biggest problem with Trump is his rhetoric, and his potential for causing wars through his provocations. However, I'm still not convinced Trump's goal is to be president so I don't spend much time on him.

 

[N_fuego]

I don't have a problem with it.

For the most part, I don't either. Although it would be interesting to read transcripts the speeches. Wonder if she'll follow through with that.

 

[moral_victory]

1. Thanks!
2. yes, it can, but I'm not accusing Hillary of that based solely on the amount of money.
3. Bernie is wrong on almost everything, but I'll agree with him that big money needs to be minimized in our political process (most Americans would). I don't think we need to go all out Bernie to fix that. Oddly, the candidate in the race that probably agrees most with Bernie on that point is Trump. He knows it's wrong and openly says it shouldn't be like that, but plays the game because that's how you get things done. Personally, I believe both Bernie and Trump would make disastrous presidents. My biggest problem with Bernie is that everything he wants to do leads to higher cost of living for everyone, less chance for the working class to move up the chain, and wishes to dis-incentivize those best positioned to provide jobs (a terrible idea if everyone gets free college). There's just no sense in most of what Bernie says. His rant about foreign trade last night contradicted itself at every turn, hence the look on Hillary's face. My biggest problem with Trump is his rhetoric, and his potential for causing wars through his provocations. However, I'm still not convinced Trump's goal is to be president so I don't spend much time on him.

Speaking of someone people thought was wrong. The guy could see into the future.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

3. Bernie is wrong on almost everything, but I'll agree with him that big money needs to be minimized in our political process (most Americans would). I don't think we need to go all out Bernie to fix that.

Obviously we disagree about Bernie being wrong on almost everything.

In theory I will agree that we don't have to go all out for Bernie to fix the money in politics problem. But how do you see that happening if we don't support the only major-party candidate who has made it a key point of his campaign? I mean I support groups like Move to Amend that want to cancel Citizens United through a clarifying constitutional amendment. But how likely is that to happen with no leadership from the top?

Bernie is better on this. Better on climate and the environment, better on surveillance (now that Rand is out), better on foreign policy and several other things. Don't you agree with those assessments - even if you don't prioritize them as high as I do? I mean who's better among the Ds and Rs?

What bad thing that Bernie advocates outweighs those better positions? What good thing from the GOP side is so important that it cancels out those things? I'm serious, I'd really like to know.

 

[ICHawk-I]

If a huge company offers hillary over $500k to do a speech, why shouldn't she take it? Would any of us turn that down? I'm pretty sure I'd just ask: What do you want me to say?

She shouldn't have to defend taking the money. She should say..."don't you wish you could...?"

I don't have a problem with her making money, that's what people that have held high office do.

If she has nothing to hide she should release the transcripts. However, if her transcripts show she is making political promises to these guys then that will just go to show she is being bought.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Speaking of someone people thought was wrong. The guy could see into the future.

View embedded media

America wasn't ready to vote for a gay president. I mean the guy was always talking about sucking....

Disclaimer, he was my 2nd choice in 1992 (after Clinton); my 3rd choice in 1996 (after Nader and Clinton, although by then I was getting disappointed with Clinton, which is why I voted for Nader).

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

I believe you're likely correct, but she isn't bound to do anything. I'm not accusing Hillary of being honest by any means, but I think it's totally unfair to simply hear the amount she was paid and arbitrarily say "that's too much!" and then jump all over her for taking it. It's not our decision, it's the free market, and if they felt the market value for HRC warranted that money, well, that's up to them. Do I think it's too much? Of course, but I don't blame HRC for taking it when they were willing to pay it.

Those who want the free market to go away are voting Bernie Sanders, he's the one candidate that wants to make that happen.

Actually he is the only who wants a free market. All the rest want the status quo which is drastically tilted for large business.

 

[IACub]

You guys have no clue. She and Bill took money for favors. It's well-documented.

Well that's definitive. "It's well-documented." Case closed, I guess I have no argument against that.

By "well-documented" I assume you mean you heard it from a guest on Hannity? Or was it O'Riley? Rush Limbaugh? ...Infowars?

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

If a huge company offers hillary over $500k to do a speech, why shouldn't she take it? Would any of us turn that down? I'm pretty sure I'd just ask: What do you want me to say?

She shouldn't have to defend taking the money. She should say..."don't you wish you could...?"

Lucky for her & slick that she was able to speak her way out of poverty and buy a place or two for the family to live. And luckily she already had the furniture she stole from the White House.

 

[moral_victory]

America wasn't ready to vote for a gay president. I mean the guy was always talking about sucking....

Disclaimer, he was my 2nd choice in 1992 (after Clinton); my 3rd choice in 1996 (after Nader and Clinton, although by then I was getting disappointed with Clinton, which is why I voted for Nader).

He did talking a lot about sucking sounds.

 

[zwick99]

If a huge company offers hillary over $500k to do a speech, why shouldn't she take it? Would any of us turn that down? I'm pretty sure I'd just ask: What do you want me to say?

She shouldn't have to defend taking the money. She should say..."don't you wish you could...?"

You are really clueless. It would not be bad EXCEPT for the fact that Hillary has spent so much time complaining about Wall Street. What about that do you not understand?

 

[sijoint]

Because republicans hate capitalism. They can't stand that someone could put themselves in a position to earn more than the common person. We should share the wealth.

Errrr.....

Listen to Berney. It's "pay to play", "it assuring access", it's " buying access", "it's illegal", it's wrong, especially when you are telling people you are against large corporations, Wall Street, a champion for the small person, the middle class and you are telling a lie. This is not capitalism.....it's criminal.

 

[whatsup13579er]

If a huge company offers hillary over $500k to do a speech, why shouldn't she take it? Would any of us turn that down? I'm pretty sure I'd just ask: What do you want me to say?

She shouldn't have to defend taking the money. She should say..."don't you wish you could...?"

It is not bad at all. It just goes against everything she and Bernie are trying to push on the American people, you know, socialism.

 

[soybean]

Her opinions or access? This is a woman who, while Bill was Governor, made a gazillion $$$$ in the commodities market....something like a 90% success rate while most people get their clocks cleaned. Then she walks away from that lucrative part time job. I'm thinking Don Tyson of Tyson Foods had a hand in it. As a public servant, she should not be cashing in on our office. If you don't demand more of our office holders, you deserve the corruptness you get.

Yeah, and what would that guy know about the futures markets anyway?

 

[artradley]

I believe you're likely correct, but she isn't bound to do anything. I'm not accusing Hillary of being honest by any means, but I think it's totally unfair to simply hear the amount she was paid and arbitrarily say "that's too much!" and then jump all over her for taking it. It's not our decision, it's the free market, and if they felt the market value for HRC warranted that money, well, that's up to them. Do I think it's too much? Of course, but I don't blame HRC for taking it when they were willing to pay it.

Those who want the free market to go away are voting Bernie Sanders, he's the one candidate that wants to make that happen.

Here's the problem. There is no way in the world that having Hillary speak is worth $500k, in and of itself. It is not.

So why would they spend well over the true market value for her to speak? What do they expect to get out of it? What do we expect they'll get out of it?

As WWJD explained, this is a bribe, plain and simple.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm just starting to read Dark Money. I bet this form of corruption comes up. But I also bet it's a drop in the bucket.

 

[TexMichFan]

I want Presidents to cash in after they leave office instead of before they are elected

 

[Hawk_82]

I didn't see or hear her answer. Can you link it?

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clinton-thats-what-they-offered-152546298.html

It is human nature to want to make money. I don't blame anyone for accepting what someone offers. Now I also don't know enough about what she stands for to know if this concept is going against what she preaches.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

This thread is the reason why there's so much corruption in our government.

 

[zwick99]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clinton-thats-what-they-offered-152546298.html

It is human nature to want to make money. I don't blame anyone for accepting what someone offers. Now I also don't know enough about what she stands for to know if this concept is going against what she preaches.

It is the exact opposite of what she preaches. That is the point.

 

[unIowa]

If a huge company offers hillary over $500k to do a speech, why shouldn't she take it? Would any of us turn that down? I'm pretty sure I'd just ask: What do you want me to say?

She shouldn't have to defend taking the money. She should say..."don't you wish you could...?"

Why are any bribes bad?

 

[aflachawk]

If a huge company offers hillary over $500k to do a speech, why shouldn't she take it? Would any of us turn that down? I'm pretty sure I'd just ask: What do you want me to say?

She shouldn't have to defend taking the money. She should say..."don't you wish you could...?"

If you really do not see this couple sells access and favorable decisions while they are in power, you are not looking. That's why its bad