3 ms·
> it turns out no speeches were given and the doctors got the checks anyways. True, but it's not like if they did, the situation would be that much better. In
by rdtsc 9y ago
> it turns out no speeches were given and the doctors got the checks anyways.
True, but it's not like if they did, the situation would be that much better. In a way for them they screwed up because the actually didn't bother playing the bribery sham all the way through like say political candidates do. For example, Hillary Clinton made $3M from speeches to large banks in just 2 years: https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/ https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-m... but they were actually organized enough to have "speechs". I remember the transcript of one was leaked, and you'd think they'd be some really deep insights and strategy laid out for the future that's worth $600k. But it was mostly "you all great, thanks for creating jobs etc etc". It is legal of course, but everyone know what it really is.
- ggg9990 9y agoIt’s not clear what it really is. People pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hollywood celebrities for appearances too, with no expectations of political favors.
- vostok 9y agoIf I was organizing a speech and had a budget of a few hundred thousand then Hillary Clinton would be near the top of my list.
- xor1 9y agoAre those appearances private?
- disillusioned 9y agoI mean, I'm in EO and our chapter spends about $150k/year on appearances from popular speakers. We're not buying influence or lobbying, and they're private appearances, yes. They're on a variety of topics from a variety of people that the organization thinks we'll find valuable, and the market has set a pretty steep price for some of the better speakers. /shrug
- kamaal 9y agoAttaching big names to your cause gives it a lot of legitimacy(at-least the perception is that way), May be that is why.
- janekm 9y agoHow amateur-hour. Now the pros are in the white-house, you'd better pony up a cool few hundred million in "loans" for a meeting with Jared ;)
- frozenport 9y agoActually the content was sufficiently controversial to get her in trouble. Specifically, reinforcing the need to have two personas, one when appealing to a general audience and another when talking business. This, along with the defense of free trade, made her look like a two-timming scumbag. Kinda like if Bernie said, "my image is a sham, I use to trick people"