What words did she speak for Goldman Sachs?
It’s disgusting the way US politicians simply take corruption for granted.
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton struggled Wednesday night to answer a question about why she took more than $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year.
“Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered,” she said when asked about the fees by CNN host Anderson Cooper in a forum televised by the network with less than a week away from the Granite State’s first-in-the-nation primary. Clinton had a lucrative turn on the paid speaking circuit after she stepped down as secretary of state, which rival Bernie Sanders has used as fodder against her.
That’s taken for granted, but it shouldn’t be. It’s as if being president is like winning gold in the Olympics – it’s a cash cow for life. Clinton gets to turn her stint as Secretary of State into huge wads of cash after she leaves the job. That shouldn’t be what it’s about.
“I wasn’t committed to running. I didn’t know whether I would or not,” she added when asked why she took the money knowing it would look bad if she ran. She said she did not regret taking the money, noting that other former secretaries of states have given paid speeches and saying that no one can influence her.
That’s what corrupt politicians always say. It’s bullshit. Why would Goldman Sachs want to give her $675,000 in one year for speaking in the first place?
Being a secretary of state should not be a money-making scheme.
The whole “Money doesn’t influence me” thing only works if you assume that the leaders of the corporate world are all Dostoyevskian village idiots who toss money at passing devils, expecting nothing in return. They very clearly believe that they are getting something for that money, and the practice clearly has enough evidence to support that theory at this point.
Speaking fees in general are astonishing. Here’s an article (and sorry, annoying slideshow format) of the speaking fees of various famous authors:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/author-speaking-fees-_n_2694635.html#gallery/281213/0
I mean, $80,000 for Malcolm Gladwell? $50-$100k for John Grisham? Even a “mere” $20k seems like more than anyone should pay for admitted liar Jonah Lehrer. And I like Neil Gaiman, but $45k to have him speak?
Numbers like that give me an appreciation of how hard it is for skeptic and atheist organizations to pass on Richard Dawkins, if he’s willing to waive or substantially reduce his standard fee for those orgs — that’s a very real savings compared to celebrities of similar stature.
Former Secretaries of State seem to draw in the $100k+ range, even if they aren’t seen as being future officeholders. So depending how many speeches Hilary delivered for Goldman Sachs, that number may not have been out of line with the market rate.
Of course, it’s entirely fair to question whether having eaten at that trough for so long says something about her.
It’s not so much that it’s a savings, because skeptic and atheist organizations don’t pay huge fees to speakers. None of them have the kind of cash to pay anything like 80 or 50 or 20 k for a speaker. They mostly don’t pay at all.
But from what we’re told, he does sell tickets, more than anyone else, so yes, that’s definitely a reason the orgs want him.
I know it’s “normal” to pay secs of state to talk. Powell is another who cashed in like mad, and it grossed me out. I’m complaining about how normal it is as well as about Clinton’s doing it.
The fees for name writers are surprising but I’m not grossed out by their doing it, because for them it’s just another part of the writing job. The fees aren’t bribes, and they’re not a repellent way of cashing in on public office.
I think the Clintons’ affection for cash and indifference to ethics says a lot about them.
I’d also note that it’s not the “how much?” but the “who’s paying?” aspect that is part of the problem. A paid speaking gig indicates that you:
1:Are a desired speaker by the target audience, and;
2: that you consider these people to be worthy of speaking to.
Neil Gaiman charges about $10-20K for speaking gigs–but he only speaks to literary clubs, comic book conventions and similar groups. (He also forgoes his fees if he really supports the group, or donates the money to charity, since he regards himself as a writer first and foremost, so speaking gigs are more of a thank-you to his audience than an actual job in itself.)
Hillary wasn’t brought back multiple times, and paid six figures regularly for it, because she was telling Goldman-Sachs hard truths about the unsustainability of the free market status quo. She was giving them exactly what they wanted to hear.
Now I’m curious about those gigs…
Ophelia: That would actually be a good question for a reporter to ask: “Ms. Clinton, could you provide us with a copy of the transcript or speaking notes of one of your engagements at Goldman-Sachs?”
I get that you find them distasteful, but I’m not sure how these speaking fees are “bribes” or “corrupt” in any sense of those words that I’m familiar with.
Generally speaking, fame can be milked for income in our society. Powell and Clinton get paid big speaking fees because they’re big, recognizable names, just like retired professional athletes or other celebrities. I don’t see any way of preventing that. If anything, I’m less offended by former politicians cashing in, because at least they did engage in public service and accepted salaries that, while generous by most Americans’ standards, were still less than most of them probably could have received otherwise.
Funny you should mention it, Freemage, I just went looking for that and found it, via Democracy Now.
Yes I’m talking about two different things here (and not making that clear). It’s not so much corruption when former presidents who don’t plan to run for office again do it – I object to that more because it’s cashing in in a way that I see as degrading. When people who do plan to run for office do it, that’s corruption.
So I googled and found the article you mentioned, Ophelia. I was rather disappointed when the Clinton supporter said that, having been there, it was ‘just about foreign policy’ as if America’s foreign policy isn’t part of what the banking community wants to influence.
And I agree there’s no (coercive) way of preventing it. I’d quite like to see it discredited though. I’d like it to be seen as squalid and grasping and infra dig.
Ophelia: fair enough.
Donald Trump was recently asked why Hillary Clinton had attended his daughter Ivanka’s wedding. He responded that he’d paid her to attend. Unlike rock stars like Rihanna, she can’t command a super high fee, but what she can command is nonetheless quite lucrative.
As a Brit I’d like to come on and smugly tell you how much better we are.
Unfortunately I can’t and in some ways it’s worse. It must cross the mind of top UK politicians that they have a clear choice:
a) Tell the USA to sod off when it’s in Britain’s interest to do so and live off your pension [Wilson]
b) Ram your head up the Presidents arse so far you can hardly see daylight and become a multi-millionaire on the speaking circuit. [Blair]
For me the oddest part of this particular version is that you can take a bit of a sabbatical to get your nose firmly in the trough, and then come back and return to office. It’s usually very clear; you lose power and *then* go off to collect your deferred bribes / claim your reward for sharing your accumulated expertise and wit [delete as applicable].
The situation in Britain is actually quite dire. One, because the revolving door between the public and private realms is not so much revolving as perpetually open: so we have politicians who are and at the same times in the employ of the corporations they are supposed to regulate. (There is a registry of interests but, hey, self regulation works so well!) and two, because the practice has slowly trickled down the chain to senior and not-so-senior civil servants with the MoD in particular having an extremely cosy relationship with the defense industry. Senior officers often go for several years on secondment to advising positions in the industry before going back to more ‘normal’ postings and then having to take decisions on procurement. And then, obviously when they retire they usually take up a very lucrative post on the board of this or that company… (Which, as James Howde said, is what British politicians have been doing for a very long time…) At the end we arrive at a farcical situation like the decision to buy the VTOL version of the american jet fighter F35 for the Royal Navy. A decision which appear more and more ill-advised by the day and which will cost many, many billions to the country and which nobody at the MoD can remember took it or advised on it!
And let’s not talk about the health service! PLease, let’s not talk about the health service…
Arnaud! Haven’t heard from you in ages. Bienvenu.
Thanks Ophelia! I would like to be able to say I’ve been busy but… I haven’t really! I guess I am more of a lurker at heart…
Well you’re not required to comment. :) But it’s nice to know you’re still there.
And I didn’t know all that. Thank you for informing us.