4 ms·

Can't say any of this is surprising...or even interesting. Big shock: companies that have enough money to pay a quarter of a million dollars to have Hillary Cli

Can't say any of this is surprising...or even interesting. Big shock: companies that have enough money to pay a quarter of a million dollars to have Hillary Clinton speak also have lobbied the government. I think its pretty comical that people seriously think that these companies are buying real favors from the Secretary of State for only $225,000. Hillary doesn't need the money that badly, and if she really were selling favors, you can bet they'd be more than $225,000! That said, this is a lesson in why public officials should be concerned about the appearance of impropriety, and not just substantive impropriety. The former can still do a lot of damage (both to yourself, and to faith in government) whether you've done anything else wrong or not. It doesn't look good to public officials to be giving paid speeches while they are still in office.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jessaustin 11y ago
Sure, HRC wouldn't cross the street for $200k. However, she and Bill have given speeches like that on a regular basis for years, to the same groups of people. Their campaigns and charitable organizations have been funded by those people too. You don't think that eventually, the cumulative tens of millions of dollars might have an effect on their thinking and decisions?
- astazangasta 11y ago
  The total between them is $153 million.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  > You don't think that eventually, the cumulative tens of millions of dollars might have an effect on their thinking and decisions? And I'm sure all these donors' interests are aligned, right? And, to be a little less flippant, I do think that the company a person keeps affects a person's thinking. So if a company can buy their way into Hillary Clinton's circle, I accept that they have managed to buy some amount of influence. But I think this influence is negligible compared to Clinton's formal advisers and organic professional network. You also have to remember that most of these companies have far more effective ways of influencing government than paying for some lousy speeches, none of which is Clinton's doing.
  - jordanb 11y ago
    > And I'm sure all these donors' interests are aligned, right? Eh? I think they're broadly aligned. They're aligned when it comes to how corporations and executives should be treated by the courts and regulatory agencies. They're aligned on the extent and structure of free trade pacts. They're aligned on corporate taxation. They're aligned with Bill Clinton's claim that the only thing wrong with the American economy is a "skills gap." Sure there's going to be disagreement (often severe) on particular points here and there but the broad thrust the economic "Washington Consensus" that Bill Clinton championed is a point of alignment among Clinton's donor class.
ddjdjehe 11y ago
It's absurd to the point of being disingenuous that you ignore the mountains of systemic corruption and sweet heart laws and legal protections and lack of prosecutions these firms which pay politicians receive.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  Probably because nobody to my knowledge has made any cogent attempt to link these speeches to any "sweet heart laws" or other special legal protections. For that matter, I'm not aware of any specific accusation that Clinton drove the creation of any such protection for a U.S. company as secretary of state, whether related to her speeches or not. The only case I know of is the State Department's opposition to a minimum-wage increase in Haiti. And this, while I find it objectionable, was clearly done to further U.S. interests as a whole, not to favor one U.S. industry or interest group over another. It's mercantilist, but its not corrupt. If there are indeed "mountains" of such examples, I expect that HN community should be able to come up with at least a few good examples, no? (But note: legitimate policy choices with which you happen to disagree are not necessarily evidence of corruption.)
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    Now you're just plain lying. Clinton has been strongly against re-instating the Glass-Steagal Act which would have prevented the 2008 disaster. She does this because she's sold out to Wall Street, since obviously they don't want that law back on the books either.
    - pdabbadabba 11y ago
      > which would have prevented the 2008 disaster. Probably not. The biggest players in the collapse, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and AIG, were not commercial banks that would have been restrained under Glass-Steagal. In fact, much of the financial structure that eventually collapsed in 2008 began to accumulate well before GLBA in 1999. And, again, I think you're overlooking the fact that there are non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back Glass-Steagal. More importantly, you're ignoring the fact that Clinton does support Dodd-Frank, as well as improvements to Dodd-Frank that would be better suited to address the causes of the 2008 collapse than just reinstating Glass-Steagal. So, she supports fairly robust new bank regulations--she just doesn't support your favorite, so you say she's corrupt (and tell me I'm 'lying' by suggesting otherwise--civil!). http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-about-glasssteagall http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-a... https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/0...
jordanb 11y ago
They're not buying favors. They're buying access just like any lobbyist. The relevant thing to understand about HRC is that she's been heavily in the access selling business for about 25 years now. Think about how much that would warp your worldview if a large bulk of the people you meet day-in and day-out for decades paid six figure sums to talk to you?
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  There's a lot right here, but I think you've got one crucial detail wrong. The recipients of Clinton's speeches hardly constitute the "large bulk" of the people she deals with every day. I think the more accurate phrase would be "tiny fraction" in the context of the rest of the Obama administration, professional advisers, staff, people met at official State Department functions, etc.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jessaustin 11y ago

Sure, HRC wouldn't cross the street for $200k. However, she and Bill have given speeches like that on a regular basis for years, to the same groups of people. Their campaigns and charitable organizations have been funded by those people too. You don't think that eventually, the cumulative tens of millions of dollars might have an effect on their thinking and decisions?

astazangasta 11y ago
The total between them is $153 million.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
> You don't think that eventually, the cumulative tens of millions of dollars might have an effect on their thinking and decisions? And I'm sure all these donors' interests are aligned, right? And, to be a little less flippant, I do think that the company a person keeps affects a person's thinking. So if a company can buy their way into Hillary Clinton's circle, I accept that they have managed to buy some amount of influence. But I think this influence is negligible compared to Clinton's formal advisers and organic professional network. You also have to remember that most of these companies have far more effective ways of influencing government than paying for some lousy speeches, none of which is Clinton's doing.
- jordanb 11y ago
  > And I'm sure all these donors' interests are aligned, right? Eh? I think they're broadly aligned. They're aligned when it comes to how corporations and executives should be treated by the courts and regulatory agencies. They're aligned on the extent and structure of free trade pacts. They're aligned on corporate taxation. They're aligned with Bill Clinton's claim that the only thing wrong with the American economy is a "skills gap." Sure there's going to be disagreement (often severe) on particular points here and there but the broad thrust the economic "Washington Consensus" that Bill Clinton championed is a point of alignment among Clinton's donor class.

ddjdjehe 11y ago

It's absurd to the point of being disingenuous that you ignore the mountains of systemic corruption and sweet heart laws and legal protections and lack of prosecutions these firms which pay politicians receive.

pdabbadabba 11y ago
Probably because nobody to my knowledge has made any cogent attempt to link these speeches to any "sweet heart laws" or other special legal protections. For that matter, I'm not aware of any specific accusation that Clinton drove the creation of any such protection for a U.S. company as secretary of state, whether related to her speeches or not. The only case I know of is the State Department's opposition to a minimum-wage increase in Haiti. And this, while I find it objectionable, was clearly done to further U.S. interests as a whole, not to favor one U.S. industry or interest group over another. It's mercantilist, but its not corrupt. If there are indeed "mountains" of such examples, I expect that HN community should be able to come up with at least a few good examples, no? (But note: legitimate policy choices with which you happen to disagree are not necessarily evidence of corruption.)
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  Now you're just plain lying. Clinton has been strongly against re-instating the Glass-Steagal Act which would have prevented the 2008 disaster. She does this because she's sold out to Wall Street, since obviously they don't want that law back on the books either.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    > which would have prevented the 2008 disaster. Probably not. The biggest players in the collapse, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and AIG, were not commercial banks that would have been restrained under Glass-Steagal. In fact, much of the financial structure that eventually collapsed in 2008 began to accumulate well before GLBA in 1999. And, again, I think you're overlooking the fact that there are non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back Glass-Steagal. More importantly, you're ignoring the fact that Clinton does support Dodd-Frank, as well as improvements to Dodd-Frank that would be better suited to address the causes of the 2008 collapse than just reinstating Glass-Steagal. So, she supports fairly robust new bank regulations--she just doesn't support your favorite, so you say she's corrupt (and tell me I'm 'lying' by suggesting otherwise--civil!). http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-about-glasssteagall http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-a... https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/0...

jordanb 11y ago

They're not buying favors. They're buying access just like any lobbyist. The relevant thing to understand about HRC is that she's been heavily in the access selling business for about 25 years now. Think about how much that would warp your worldview if a large bulk of the people you meet day-in and day-out for decades paid six figure sums to talk to you?

pdabbadabba 11y ago
There's a lot right here, but I think you've got one crucial detail wrong. The recipients of Clinton's speeches hardly constitute the "large bulk" of the people she deals with every day. I think the more accurate phrase would be "tiny fraction" in the context of the rest of the Obama administration, professional advisers, staff, people met at official State Department functions, etc.