Firms have government interests. Full stop. News at eleven.
The king and queen of pay to play.
So sayth the Emperor of Whine and Slime.
Yes, yes, yes…2016 election…nation’s highest office…leader of the free word…yada, yada, yada.
But what does any of this have to do with Prince?
Oh, wait – another Prince article just posted. Thank G-d! I was beginning to panic.
It had been almost five minutes.
“Firms That Paid For Clinton Speeches Have US Government Interests”
Goddamn misogynists. You are just spreading lies about Clinton because she’s a woman.
Transcripts? Transcripts?! We don’ gotta show you no stinkin’ transcripts…
Luckily for HRC this isn’t something the media can follow up on once she’s president.
Uh, duh!
Glad this is an AP story and not a TPM story, which I would have the urge to gag at.
As others have noted, 1) big firms pay for speeches; and 2) big firms get government contracts. Surely, that can only be surprising to folks who have been asleep for 50 years.
The implication is that because of those payments for speeches, those companies are able to have influence over policy beyond that which would normally flow. I guess I just don’t see the evidence for that. Moreover, because we essentially know the identity of the groups for whom she gave speeches, if she manages to twist policy in their favor, we’ll know that too.
The other argument is that it’s hypocritical for HRC to rail against Citizens United while taking money for speeches and setting up Super PACS. I don’t get that. The reality is that big money is a part of politics, even more so under Citizens United, AND that the Repubs are the huge beneficiaries of this largess. Of the 10 largest political contributors since last year, according to the WaPo, 8 were Repubs. Perhaps it makes sense to ask HRC to forswear large contributions, but that is essentially disarming unilaterally. If Trump is the opponent, it makes financial ability even more critical, because he can add to whatever he gets in contributions.
Finally, for whatever it’s worth, I have a brother in law who has been a lobbyist, Association head for many years. He used to invite Bill Bradley, Newt, other big wigs for speeches, and I’d always ask what they said. They talk about what’s going on in the world or in the political arena, providing their opinions for what it’s worth. What do we think they say, “Give me the money and I’ll vote your way”? Really.
Jeez
Plenty of celebrities and former politicians get paid exorbitant amounts for speeches. Ex-Presidents do. Trump does. Former Secretaries of States, First Ladies, etc. Why is it so unusual that an ex-First Lady, ex-Senator, ex-Secretary of State and famous advocate for women’s causes would receive large speaking fees while she is a private citizen. But if she released some banal speech where she praised Goldman Sachs for having a nice office or being kind hosts, I guess that would indict her as being in their pocket forever and a day.
I forgot, no Politico and very tight restrictions on APRIL please.
AP jeez
This one of biggest duhs that ever duhhed.
“”“Presidents are not generally bound by many of the ethics and conflict-of-interest regulations that apply to non-elected executive branch officials, although they are subject to laws covering related conduct, such as bribery and illegal gratuities”""
Whoever wrote that trash can kiss my ass. No one has alleged any of that of Clinton and the prick that wrote this bit doesn’t need to add it gratuitously.
I know Josh Marshall wrote a thing about being worried…in so far as the Clinton speeches are concerned but fuck that. She gave the damn things to 1000’s of LISTENERS!!! They heard them. They know what was said. And many…many of those listeners were GOP’ers. ( There isn’t a GOP’er out there that wouldn’t love to derail Clinton ) Some are probably Sander’s supporters. So wheres the beef?
We’ve been dancing around these fucking speeches for a year. Where’s the fucking beef? Are we to believe if she had said something incriminating or suggestive of a love affair with big biz no one…NO ONE would have leaked it by now? NOT a single soul…of the 1000’s comes forward and say “Clinton said this…”…not a one and yet we still strain to believe she said something damning? Come on TPM. Come on Sanders. Come on GOP’ers. Come on…what the fuck did she say that would cast doubt on her fitness to run as a Democratic candidate for president? Not what you think…what the fuck did she actually say!
If you think Clinton has something to hide in the transcripts why not ask one of the folks the heard the speeches. There are 1000’s of them. Yes she spoke to the wall street assholes and they paid her. But what did she say? Did she say " I love you guys and Ill fuck over everyone for you". If she did, transcripts or no transcripts, we’d know that by now…don’t you think?
The Sanders campaign can’t find one person that heard those speeches that can give them some dirt? Perhaps there’s no dirt.
Enough. What did she fucking say? Who gives a shit who she said it to. What did she fucking say!
Although, the AP did its usual in depth research and reporting, only innuendo is implied, without evidence. Of course Secretary of State Clinton helped GE with foreign company not as a personal favor, rather a part of her responsibility of office. Has anyone heard of the Department of Commerce–a significant function of the Federal Government is to support economic growth and jobs.
Developing advanced technologies is a function of the the DoC. Where is the evidence Hillary Clinton, as a two term Senator, showing signs of being bought off? If such evidence existed, the Senate ethics committee would have opened an investigation; as for the State Department, few citizens have a clue as to the responsibilities of the Office, and the role of oversight Congressional committees holding regularly scheduled hearings to understand what is occurring and if questionable actions were occurring, there would have been recourse options.
I find it disappointing how little citizens know about the functions of the Federal Government when supported by a Congress doing its rightful work and only now are allowing the Republican Party’s Congressional obstructionism to appease sub groups within the Party. The absence of understanding is what allows political shrills to mislead the public to their own advantage, through “red meat” tossing statements.
Earlier this week we found out people in NY were unaware of election practices related to primary elections and campaigns being unaware of delegate processing. This is a responsibility of persons running campaigns; those who know, win while those lacking such knowledge and lose blame the system, not their internal failure to do their job. A good campaign and life in general is about attending to details.
It would be nice if TPM could avoid posting “appearance of impropriety” articles about Clinton from places like AP or the NY Times.
As usual, what is missing is context. How do Clinton’s speaking fees compare to speaking fees received by other first ladies, other congresspersons, other Secretaries of State, other Presidential hopefuls? My impression is that Clinton’s speaking fees outstrip everybody else in each of those categories, but it would be refreshing to see a journalist do some real legwork to put her fees in context.
I remember a flap about Bush Senior getting a million-dollar fee, but that was after his presidency, not before. So maybe the only news here is that Hillary collects her “fees” up front. Still no quid pro quo, just a business community very very grateful for a politician who sees things their way.
Hillary Clinton is the final evolution of the Democratic party, the party that is both the party of women and minorities and unashamed of being just as bought as the Republicans
I’ll agree there’s a lot of innuendo and guilt by association; but it’s an impressive list and an impressive haul for only 2 years of speaking engagements. There will never be more than innuendo because we all know the rules of the game, nothing on paper, no quid pro quo. I believe evidence that convicted “Duke” Cunningham was just a few figures on a napkin. Smarter players won’t even leave behind a napkin.
What I would want to know is what other speakers each group has invited in the last few years, and what they paid them. If these fees were in line with what others were paid, then it’s not so shocking, but if Clinton’s fees were head and shoulders above the rest, it would look like a whole lot of companies and organizations were trying to buy influence while Clinton was available just before her run for President.
I have enough confidence in the career civil servants and procurement regulations to see the government contracts as irrelevant. The influence of politicians on regulations is potentially more lucrative and more problematic.
I’m glad to see all these fees on the record. I’m sure that every time a company acts badly and there is no leadership, an inadequate response, or an argument for less intervention from the White House, somebody will ask if it was because of the speaking fees.
But all this proves is that Clinton was popular on the speaker circuit. Unless we can tie a specific decision made by her to a fee, all we have is innuendo.
A laundry list of her speaking gigs doesn’t get us there.