Discussion: Clinton Says All Money From Colleges Has Gone To Foundation

Discussion for article #224687

Hope she’s not exaggerating. Because if she is, we’ll never ever hear the end of it.

1 Like

If HRC went to an impoverished city in this country or an impoverished country anywhere for the purpose of building housing with her own hands, and then canning and preserving food for them with her own hands, and then sewing up clothing for all those in need, and then she stood down guerilla armies with nothing more than a slingshot, it still wouldn’t stop the criticism of her because it’s all they got. She’s the grist for their hate mill.

11 Likes

It’s not so much her money as her reality-based from the hip candor.
If cashing in is a crime in this corrupt age of cashing in then indict all political Washington, their families and their sugar daddies/mommies.

3 Likes

Just don’t expect her to bake cookies.

2 Likes

I am sure that will make the students feel better about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars just to hear Hillary spout some more lies. Because the Clinton Foundation is Godly!

Kinda.

The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

And concern was rising inside and outside the organization about Douglas J. Band, a onetime personal assistant to Mr. Clinton who had started a lucrative corporate consulting firm — which Mr. Clinton joined as a paid adviser — while overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation’s glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.

The review set off more than a year of internal debate, and spurred an evolution in the organization that included Mr. Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, taking on a dominant new role as the family grappled with the question of whether the foundation — and its globe-spanning efforts to combat AIDS, obesity and poverty — would survive its founder.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch…

At UNLV, where officials have agreed to raise tuition by 17 percent over the next four years, student government leaders wrote a letter to Clinton last week asking her to return the planned $225,000 fee to the university. If she does not, they say, they intend to protest her visit.

“The students are outraged about this,” said Elias Benjelloun, UNLV’s student body president. “When you see reckless spending, it just belittles the sacrifices students are consistently asked to make. I’m not an accountant or economist, so I can’t put a price tag on how much we should be paying her, but I think she should come for free.”

5 Likes

I don’t feel we have enough information to comment on the UNLV students’ requests. Does the school routinely pay for speakers? Do they typically pay much less? I work at a university and empathize with students’ concern about fiscal responsibility. However, colleges and universities routinely pay huge sums of money for entertainers, bands, etc which the students want on campus.

They might lie about it if it weren’t true, but they don’t have to because it is.

I think $225,000 for a speaker on campus is probably pretty steep, actually. And if some of that funding comes from student fees, then their concern seems reasonable. I think that raising these concerns in light of a mind-numbing 17 percent increase seems also reasonable. What’s entirely misleading, however, is that that tuition hike is not occurring in one year, but over four years. Still pretty obnoxious, of course, but nothing like it happening all in one year.

The Dalai Lama visited my university, and the university had to pay $300,000 for the visit. However, the University also charged for tickets, and wound up making money on the visit. I don’t know whether student fees were part of the original price, though.

2 Likes

This is wordplay.
She means it has been buried underneath the water heater.

Everything in your reply is valid. The fee does seem steep but, as I wrote, I have been surprised by fees which student organizations were willing to pay on my campus. We don’t know if student money was used for this fee. We also don’t know how UNLV tuition compares with other similar schools across the country (i.e. schools which are significantly cheaper than their peers sometimes do make incremental tuition increases). Nevertheless, I have significant concerns about the rising cost of higher education and wish it was accessible to all who are qualified and interested.

1 Like

The speaker fees were paid for from a private foundation, not the University budget.

1 Like

If that’s the case then the students have no reasonable way of linking the tuition hike to her speaking fees. A point that will be buried, however, in the coming coverage of this.

3 Likes

How much do other speakers get? How much does Sarah Palin get when she speaks? Or other politicos? Or speakers of any kind? Is Hilary making more per speech than everyone else? Or are they just Hilary-bashing? I think I can answer the last question myself.

No speaker on earth and no speach on earth is worth $ 200.000. Or, for that matter, $ 20.000. If universities and other institutions are stupid enough to pay that amount of money to celebrities, then the celebrities would have to be as stupid as the people who hire them not to take that money. End of story.

1 Like

All thumbs way up.

Where was all the criticism from the right when Palin got paid a hefty fee plus travel expenses etc. at Cal State Stanislaus?

Never mind.

Who cares. If people are willing to pay her large sums of money for speaking engagements, more power to her – to anyone. Such is the way of capitalism. Donating to a charity is more than most would do.

2 Likes

Except when the appearance of the speaker means a net gain for the university. Which it meant for the university I work for. And the speaker in question was the Dalai Lama.

They’re Hillary bashing because it’s what they do.

They’re also Hillary bashing because Hillary Clinton has a tin ear.

Yes, I know, I’m going to get dumped all over for this response but Clinton made this an issue by describing her financial situation after leaving the White House as “broke”.

Hillary Clinton made her speaking fees an issue all by herself. That’s what bugs me.

Yes, the media, the wingers, Fox, Drudge and countless other sites are going to be all over Clinton for reasons that are awful.

Hillary Clinton insisting that she was broke, and then doubling down on that? Just stupid.

And tone-deaf.

4 Likes