3 ms·
It is clear she took money from many people because they hired her to give a speech. This isn't really in debate. The core question is whether the money will in
by treebeard901 10y ago
It is clear she took money from many people because they hired her to give a speech. This isn't really in debate. The core question is whether the money will influence her policies. Giving a speech doesn't mean you're bribed or influenced by default. The content of the speech is very important, so it's good we are seeing what was said.
- pdkl95 10y ago> Giving a speech doesn't mean you're ... influenced by default. No, but taking a large amount of money does. Even if you believe you aren't taking money for a "bribe" and maintain some level of independence in the actual content of your speech, there is a significant unconscious bias. If you want to get that kind of job again, you might not be as critical of the people paying you. > The core question is whether the money will influence her policies. Approach the question from the other side. No for-profit business is going to give large sums of money out without some expectation of a return on that investment. Someone is betting that they will be able to get more money having the ear of a politician than their other investment opportunities.