I have a simplistic view of such things: follow the money. Does Goldman Sachs really feel that Clinton speeches are worth the tens of millions they have paid f

I have a simplistic view of such things: follow the money. Does Goldman Sachs really feel that Clinton speeches are worth the tens of millions they have paid for them? The reasonable explanation in my mind is that it is a quid pro quo. People don’t spend that kind of money without getting something in return. Tom Delay and K Street are proof enough of high level corruption and paybacks for enacting certain policies. Obama wouldn’t have ever afforded a $5 million house in D.C. until he became President. I might be overly cynical though. https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinto...