153 million
I heard someone say on NPR the other day that the two Clintons have collected $150 million in speaking fees since he left office. My jaw dropped. I knew they’d both been pocketing huge fees, of course, but I didn’t know it added up to 150 MILLION.
CNN did the accounting a couple of months ago.
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.
I knew the bank part. I didn’t know the 150 MILLION part. Or maybe I did, but just didn’t register the scope of the exploitation.
The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.
“What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one’s life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests,” Sanders said at Thursday’s Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.
The former secretary of state testily responded to Sanders’ charges.
“Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, senator, and I really don’t think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough,” Clinton said.
She then challenged him: “If you’ve got something to say, say it directly, but you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received.”
You know, she really should stop making that argument. She should stop personalizing the issue and be honest about the real issue, the not-personal issue – that money in politics is corrupting, and that’s why bribery is a bad thing and should not be allowed, no matter how nice and upstanding any particular politician may be. It doesn’t matter that she’s convinced she never changed a view or a vote because of any donation (if she really is convinced of that, as opposed to just performing conviction). She doesn’t get to exempt herself from general laws because she knows how wonderful she is. She doesn’t get to make it about her character. For that matter she doesn’t get to act as if she has no clue that people can be wrong about their own motives, and lie to themselves about how good they are, and the like. She should be acting as if she is subject to the same errors and biases and self-interested motivations as other human beings are, as opposed to assuming and telling us she is saintly and incorruptible to an extent beyond the reach of ordinary people.
Also, she doesn’t get to be that fatuous about influence and agency. How could it be the case that donations and inflated speaking fees had no influence on her views and votes whatsoever? That would be supernatural. Why should her views and votes be supernatural when no one else’s are? How exactly did she manage to make herself wholly immune to the influence of huge sums of money?
By saying that kind of shit she just does more to entrench the whole disgusting corrupt process. It pisses me off.
Even if, by some miracle, she never ever once remotely considered giving a thought to the idea of altering her vote or position because of all those donations, that still doesn’t absolve her of the fact that the people who have ruined this economy think she’s the most awesome special person on the planet. There is a reason they give that money, and it’s not just access–it’s also because they feel that she will represent their interests. Bernie’s challenge has been based on the argument that those interests are not in line with that of the Democratic Party’s base.
And it would be miraculous if all that cash had zero effect on her, and why should we accept her claim to be miraculous? I just hate it that they keep telling us to believe that (“they” because legislators do exactly the same thing – “how dare you say that my vote can be bought?” yadda yadda). Of course people are influenced by large donations; that’s normal; stop telling us to believe the impossible just because it’s precious You.
Ugh.
You are, of course, correct in pointing out that it would be supernatural if all the large donations from special interest groups didn’t influence Clinton’s position on issue. However, what I feel is important to point out is precisely the thing that Clinton doesn’t appear to understand at all (Freemage already touched on it): the reason these special interest groups donate to Clinton’s campaign and pay exorbitant speaking fees to her and her husband is because they feel HER POLITICAL VIEWS ALREADY REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS.
This is the gigantic blind spot that makes Clinton appear so clueless when she angrily retorts at Sanders about the “insinuations”. She thinks she is being accused of corruption, and tries to present herself as incorruptible. The insinuation is not necessarily that her vote on issues can be bought or her views can be influenced (although human psychology being what it is, and Clinton being human and therefore not exempt, her views and votes probably ARE, to some extent, influenced). What Sanders (and many others) are pointing out is that regardless of the subtleties of how and when Clinton’s views are formed, they dovetail with the interests of the 1%, and that’s why some representatives of the 1% have been so generous toward her and her family and her campaign.
Fair point. Looking at it that way what they’re buying is access more than a change of views. That’s why corporations donate to both parties. “We pay you; you listen to us.”
I remember a moment during the Clinton presidency when he actually said that, in so many words. If people pay for it, they’re entitled to access. He said that. I remember throwing things around the room.
Anna Y said it clearer than I, but that is the point I was trying to make, yes. Even if she’s held these views since she first became interested in politics, it would simply mean that the bankers and brokers and other titans of finance see her as One of Their Own–and in that regard, at least, I’m inclined to trust their judgement.
I’d also say it is more than just ‘access’, in that case. It means that they are also pushing a trusted supporter into a position of power. (After all, they know what that money is used for.) They don’t need access in the way it was suggested by Bill in that speech you mentioned–she IS the access.
Hell, in a way, it would almost be reassuring if she was just being bought–at least in theory, it might be possible for someone with both money and ethics (I grant, a rare combination) to put in a competitive bid.
I’m studying accounting ethics this semester.
Every time the possibility of conflict of interest comes up in the accounting code, it states that a person must avoid not only a conflict, but the *appearance* of conflict. For example, an accountant shouldn’t take a job auditing a company if they have a relative who works for the company, if they’ve gotten gifts from the company, if they have a significant investment in the company, or if they provide other services for the company– anything that might make them biased. Even if the accountant is as honest as can be: part of the responsibility of an accountant is to maintain the reputation of their profession, which can’t be done if people suspect you had reason to forget your duty to the public.
The same is true for politicians and judges— the public is losing faith in the system because the people with power think nothing of being in bed with special interests. And we really don’t care whether the politician is a true believer in corporatism or whether they’ve been bought. Either way, the politician is pursuing the interests of themselves and their friends and allies, and not thinking about justice or compassion or democracy.
Also, words mean things. Words also *don’t* mean what they don’t mean. So let’s parse this: “you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received”
“you will not find” This does not actually mean that it didn’t happen. It could just as easily mean there is no *evidence*. Since motivation happens inside a person’s head we often can’t find evidence of a person’s motivation.
“changed a view or a vote”– Ah, but what about the decision-making process? People can inluence you without *changing* your vote, if you make a practice of starting from neutrality and then listening to all sides… but especially the sides who have always shown you their support.
“because of any donation I ever received.” A speaking fee isn’t a donation, though, is it? A donation to your husband’s charity is not a donation *you* received, is it? But more than anything, *because* is the problem word in this phrase. A donation buys access. Access gives a chance to present an argument. *The argument is what persuades the politician*.
Presto, bingo! The politician can honestly say the donation didn’t change their mind, the argument did.
[…] a comment by Samantha Vimes on 153 […]
That the American voter, at least at the beginning of the current campaign, would be offered a ‘choice’ between a reheated Bush or a warmed-over Clinton speaks volumes.
Like…will it be Coke or Pepsi?
Alas, ‘Little Jebby’ is gone and Hill is feeling the Bern.
And Donald Trump is the orange soda.
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/pb.144310995587370.-2207520000.1460215371./1119496781402115/?type=3&theater