Clintons Report $30M From Speeches, Book In Past 16 Months

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

May 15, 9:52 PM EDT

By KEN THOMAS and STEPHEN BRAUN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton reported Friday that they earned more than $30 million combined in speaking fees and book royalties since January 2014, putting them firmly within the upper echelon of American earners as the former secretary of state seeks the White House again.

Clinton's presidential campaign reported the income in a personal financial disclosure report filed with the Federal Election Commission on Friday night. The report, required of every candidate for the White House, showed the couple amassed more than $25 million in speaking fees and Hillary Clinton earned more than $5 million from her 2014 memoir, "Hard Choices."

The earnings put the couple in the top one-tenth of 1 percent of all Americans.

While Clinton has begun her second campaign for president by casting herself as a champion for middle-class voters, she's long drawn criticism from Republicans about the wealth she and Bill Clinton have generated since he left the White House. That includes their ability to command six-figure fees for delivering speeches to corporations and trade groups, which the report lists in detail.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-15-20-03-57

[6000eliot]

1. Do they happen to mention the financial status of those Republicans criticizing the Clintons?

[Purveyor]

3. No. They are saving that for next weeks 'late evening, friday news dump'. Can't have too many

you know...it might actually garner some attention.

[workinclasszero]

27. Of course not, they love the koch bros billions /nt

[onehandle]

2. Chump change to a Koch Brother, a Walton, or an Adelson. nt

[seveneyes]

4. Yeah but just look at what we average people get for it

We are fucking lucky. Let's not be so undemanding.

[PSPS]

5. This is an outrage!!11! I'm voting for Jeb!!!!111!1! That'll learn 'em good!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[redstateblues]

6. How dare they make money!

Let's face it- most high profile politicians' net worth increases dramatically after they have been in politics for a while. I don't have any problem with it at all.

[Geronimoe]

10. Bribes

However there is no representation of everyday Americans when there is a pot of gold for politicians when they leave office. So why would anyone pay taxes, into a system that considers them expendable?

[JDPriestly]

7. They can earn what they want, but if they earn $30 million in

two years, it kind of makes it hard for them to understand the problems of people who live on maybe $1300 plus a little for Social Security or a teacher paid $50,000 per year.

It's just that there is a huge gap between their tax bracket and the tax brackets of the rest of us if we even make enough to pay taxes.

I'm happy to see the Clintons making lots of money, but I'm not voting for Hillary and her money is one of the reasons.

[LovingA2andMI]

26. Ditto-

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. All the Kennedys were given trusts so they would never have to work...

When John Kennedy was campaigning in the West Virginia primaries a miner told him "I heard you never worked s day in your life.You're not missing anything."


I would have voted for him against the poor Richard Nixon any day of the week.


Using your benchmark folks should vote for Marco Rubio because his dad was an immigrant bartender and his mother was an immigrant maid or Ben Carson whose mom had a third grade education and whose dad was a preacher or Mike Huckabee who was the first male from his family to graduate from high school.


BTW, Bill Clinton's mom was a nurse and his dad was a salesman who died in a car accident before he was born. Hillary's dad was a small business owner and her mom was a homemaker.

[JDPriestly]

39. The question isn't whether their parents had a lot of money.

The question is what did the Clintons do to earn so much money in one year?

Now some of it, $5 million was for Hillary's book. That is a lot for a book,, but reasonable considering how much many people like her and are interested in what she has to say.

But the rest of it? The Clintons are not entrepreneurs as far as I know. They don't run companies. That money was paid to them, presumably, for speeches and personal services. Wel then we have to ask who can pay that much for speeches and what kinds of personal services did the Clintons provice?

Universities pay fees for speeches. As do corporations and civic groups. How much of the rest of the money was from civic groups, and how much from corporations? How much from universities?/

And as for the corporations and civic groups (think tanks, etc. included), who paid them and why? Were the payments really for the speeches and great wisdom of the Clintons? Or were those paying for the speeches buying the hope or reality of influence? If so, who were they and what kind of influence might the buyers hope to get?

We deserve to know exactly how and from whom and for what the Clintons earned their money because Hillary is running for the presidency, doing well in the polls, and we the American people deserve to have, should she be elected, a clean government that is free from purchased influence, from CORRUPTION.

Our government has become so corrupt anyway. The last thing we need is a president who earns her money giving "speeches" to people who are really paying for or think they are paying for her influence.

The Clinton income is an issue and will become a huge one by election time should she be the Democratic candidate.

Is some of this income actually income of the Clinton charitable foundation? If so, why are people so generous to that foundation.

We need a lot more detail on this income and its origins.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. You are right ...

The question isn't whose parents had a lot of money..The question is who were given million dollar trusts so they wouldn't ever have to work a day in their lives...Those who weren't granted million dollar trusts had to earn their money, like the Clintons.

Oh, and George Walker Bush, who nearly wrecked the republic earned $15,000,000.00 for speeches in the two years after he left office. The Clintons deserve twice as much for saving it.



Folks are too worried about their own money to worry about how the Clintons got theirs.

[JDPriestly]

47. It is OK for the Clintons to make the money giving speeches and earninig what

the corporations want to pay them.

But if they are going to do that, Hillary should not run for the presidency. Because all that money going to her for speeches looks to me and will look to many others like up-front pay-offs for favors for corporations. That may be far from the reality, far from the truth. The Clintons may be perfectly capable of treating those who pay them all that money like bums and refusing to do anything for them that they would not do anyway.

But in ethics, there is something called the perception of unethical, in this case, corrupt, behavior. And the speech fees for a person who plans to run or who later runs for political office are a big ethical problem and raise big ethical questions about conflicts of interest and the selling of favors, influence and access. And all that adds up to CORRUPTION which just happens to be one of the biggest problems in America and one of the major reasons for the disparity in income that is destroying our people.

So the Clinton income and where it comes from is a campaign topic as far as I am concerned. It is not personal just to the Clintons. I question whether other national political figures who are supposed to be working to represent the people make deals for post-government work pay-offs and accept gifts and money they should not accept.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. I am content to let the voters decide...

I am content to let the voters decide and I am confident they will decide their own finances are more important than the finances of the Clintons...Maybe that's because most of my friends are working class and middle class folks whose life lessons are learned in the real world and not in text books.

[workinclasszero]

49. Did the MSM complain about Bush

making money off of speeches?

Why fuck no, of course not! But if Hillary or Bill does the same thing it's some kind of heinous crime!

More fuckin republican / left BS outrage to knock off the only democrat who can win in 2016!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. George Walker Bush made $15,000,000.000 for his speeches in two years.

Where's the MSM?

[workinclasszero]

51. Too busy doggin Hillary and Bill for the same thing

You know if the Clintons had made their money the old fashioned way by oppressing workers and trashing the environment like the Koch Bros the MSM would not bother them

[yeoman6987]

54. It was after he was President. Nobody minds Bill making

Speeches. Hillary 2016!

[jalan48]

8. $25 million in speaking fees in 16 months?

That works out to about $50,000 each day for the last 16 months (if they spoke every day). It's not a knock on the Clintons but who can pay this kind of money to hear someone speak?

[joshcryer]

13. They must be one hot commodity.

One speech each for them for $250k every 10 days could work out too. But have they really given 100 some speeches to afford that at the assumed rate of $250k?

It's gotta be a lot higher than that. I only recall Hillary Clinton giving maybe 10 speeches in the same time frame.

The fees must be in the $350-400k range!

[jalan48]

15. I think the most straight forward way to look at it is to ask how much they make per hour

for speaking. That's how the average American is paid and understands income.

[joshcryer]

17. We need a list of speeches or appearances though.

Last edited Sat May 16, 2015, 03:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Which I can't find anywhere. Bill Clinton's speeches are notoriously hard for me to find, he's been doing them since he left office, especially before he had his heart attack, he was supposedly doing them daily or weekly.

The going rate has to be insane. Much higher than the $250k estimates. Much higher. Hopefully some journalist will do the math in a report today or tomorrow.

edit: apparently they did do 100 speeches!

Wow... http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-received-more-than-25-million-from-speeches-since-january-2014-1431730968

[JDPriestly]

40. And how much of it is really payment for hoped-for corruption.

[Beaverhausen]

20. They are two of the most admired people in the world

Of course they pull down high speaking fees.

[joshcryer]

21. Found a good article, Bill did 542 speeches for $105 million.

From 2001 to 2013.

That's an average of about $200k per speech.

Since 2014 they did 51 and 53 paid speeches respectively. That fits the 100 number I said, so I was woefully underestimating how many speeches they were doing. Almost one a week.

So the $250k number stands I am just shocked they have done so many speeches.

[pscot]

37. If you project that out over the last 16 months

Say 140 talks for $25 million that's around $180,000 per each.

[joshcryer]

38. Not bad for thirty mins a pop.

I just never knew they were so prolific.

[JDPriestly]

41. They are asking to be perceived as corrupt when they get paid for "speeches" like that.

Absurd payments for speeches if this report is anywhere near true.

This is one of the reasons I don't think Hillary can be elected in spite of her polls.

The Clintons have focused on making lots of money. And focusing on making money is incompatible with fpcusing on governing in a democratic society. Those with the money will be expecting Hillary Clinton to deliver. And indeed we see that Bill Clinton did deliver on a lot of bills and issues dear to the 1%. He did very little if anything to bring economic justice -- that is Bill Clinton did very little. He had a Republican Congress but still he "felt" our pain but he really didn't do much to alleviate it. We were worse off after his presidency but we didn't know it because laws he signed like the changes to welfare, to the banking system and to telecommunications did not really begin to have deleterious effects until after he left office.

And then George Bush signed bills that changed the tax and bankruptcy codes -- more bad news for regular people especially those with student loan debt.

I'm ready for real change. I'm supporting Bernie Sanders.

[brooklynite]

45. I suspect the people who "perceive" them as corrupt had pretty much already decided that...

[JDPriestly]

46. It is pretty obvious after a certain point.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was a very corrupt move.

[erpowers]

24. $500,000 Per Speech

As far as I know President Clinton is paid $500,000 per speech. I do not know how much Secretary Clinton makes per speech. I heard it mentioned that some of the money came from book sales, so maybe their books are still selling. President Clinton put out a book about improving the economy a few years ago. Maybe people are still buying that book.

[JDPriestly]

42. People who pay that kind of money may be seeking influence.

Influence can range from shaking hands with a person who has influence to being noticed to then being able to make a suggestion or at the top of the list, ask a favor. The person who receives $500,000 per speech is viewed as a potential connector to others who have influence. This is a sick, sick problem.

Our country is so corrupt, and $500,000 per speech reeks with a very corrupt stench. That's 62,500 hours at $8 per hour. That's 1562 and a half 40 hour weeks. That's a little over 30 years of working 40 hours a week for $8 per hour. One speech. That's heartless even if they do give a lot of it away.

You know that if in their speeches the Clintons are really fighting hard for higher wages, universal healthcare, free pre-school for all children, better education and more money spent on education and social programs like welfare and food for dependent children,, etc., that they will probably not be paid $500,000 per speech. They give lip service to all these good ideas and their fee of $500,000 says they speak at that rate to very rich groups and individuals.

What a sham. I don't care if they give it all away. This is outrageous. Over 30 years of work for a person earning slightly more than the federal minimum wage just for one speech. No matter what they do with the money, they are giving the speeches to people who are trying to buy influence. That's just really low.

[Geronimoe]

9. Richly rewarded

Bill is richly rewarded for causing the 2008 world economic meltdown, that cost American taxpayers $15 trillion dollars.

Nothing in America makes sense anymore. In a survey in which they asked issues of value, it seemed 90% of Americans would rather live in Norway. I think this was a Pew polling.

If Hillary wins the Presidential election, most Americans will be illegally migrating away from corporate fascist America.

[quickesst]

11. er....

That's all I got.

[geek tragedy]

56. Ted Cruz, is that you?

1) Bill Clinton didn't cause the global meltdown. You're over looking the guy who was president between 2000 and 2008, and who took the strong, healthy economy Clinton left him and flushed it down the toilet.

2)

If Hillary wins the Presidential election, most Americans will be illegally migrating away from corporate fascist America.

[One_Life_To_Give]

58. Without Revoking Glass Steagell 2008 could not have happened

They have a point. The trading done by GS et all which caused the meltdown was illegal for most of the 20th century. The repeal of Glass Steagall was necessary for the big banks to gamble like that and cause the resulting mess.

[geek tragedy]

59. that didn't help, but the main driver was Bush's economic policies of running up huge deficits

while unemployment was low. That caused an asset bubble--people had a temporary but unsustainable source of income which they had to invest somewhere. So, people bought stocks and they bought houses, which drove up the prices. But, when the party was over, those assets plummeted in value and trillions in paper wealth evaporated.

Also, pissing away trillions on Iraq didn't help things.

[One_Life_To_Give]

60. Just cause Holder won't prosecute the Securities Fraud

dosen't mean it didn't happen. Nor that it was not the prime cause behind the failure of Lehman Brothers and the Taxpayer financed Bailout. Main street buying Mortgages they couldn't afford didn't cause the collapse, that is a Wall Street planted myth. Twas pure Greed and Fraud that brought the collapse.

[geek tragedy]

61. a shitpile that big has multiple causes. It wasn't just Wall Street that caused the crisis.

That's not to defend Wall Street--they behaved abmoninably.

But, they were far from the only cause.

There was all kinds of fraud-Wall Street fraud, lender fraud, borrower fraud, appraisal fraud.

Home prices did go up way more than they should have--they were way out of whack with incomes. Stock market was also overvalued (there's a healthy argument it still is).

[joshcryer]

12. I wonder how many speeches that comes out to.

Are people really willing to pay that much for the Clinton's to speak? That's crazy.

[billhicks76]

14. Out Of Touch

Make all the money you want...just don't try to usurp our government while pretending you have it tough and can relate. Go buy your mansions and leave the governing to people who care about preventing wars, oppression and income inequality.

[Beaverhausen]

16. Hilary's book was published June 2014

Probably where a lot of that income came from.

[joshcryer]

18. OP says $5 million came from that.

[quadrature]

19. peanuts... the problem will be their foundation ...nt

[Sunlei]

22. That's all? for hundreds of speeches? & they paid 30% taxes! contrast that /w Rs who pay no taxes

and use campaign donations to buy their own books.

With years of income from Mr. Clinton's speeches they could be billionaires by now with several homes. They must have rolled millions into their charity Foundation. They have helped thousands of people with education, including college.

[cynzke]

23. Outrageous!!! How Dare They?

Have the Clintons no respect for traditions? You know, gouging and cheating consumers, exploiting employees. Polluting the environment to save a few pennies. Shipping jobs to countries with slave labor, and of course, the most revered tactic, off-shoring your wealth to avoid paying taxes. Well no wonder the Clintons are upsetting so many people. They EARN their money working hard by their own initiatives, not by EXPLOITATION. And they travel the world encouraging corporations and countries to invest in programs to help lower poverty. The Clintons put their fellow millionaires to shame. NO, can't have that!!!

[FLPanhandle]

25. So? I fully support people making as much money as they wish

As long as they pay their fair share of taxes on it, then go for it!

We aren't communists no matter how much Rush tries to say we are.

[SheilaT]

28. It is nice to know that they went from being flat broke when they left the White House to this

sort of payday.

How much money they make per speech is a good example of market forces in place. It's why professional ball players are paid so much. People are willing to pay to see them.

But Hillary has never really lived from paycheck to paycheck, and it's been a very long time since Bill did. As someone up thread pointed out, they don't really get what it's like to be someone who lives on 13k a year, or even 50k.

So many of our politicians are very removed from ordinary Americans and how they really live. Look at Chris Christie's recent complaints about how little he makes. Or Mitt Romney lamenting he had to sell stocks to afford to stay in college. One of the remarkable things about Ted Kennedy was that even though he grew up rich, he never seemed to lose an understanding of what it was like for those who didn't have his privileges.

[misterhighwasted]

29. I think we should be likewise examining the Bush Points of Light Foundation

Nothing that crime family does benefits anyone but themselves.

[JoePhilly]

30. Funny how Hillary gets attacked from left and right on this ... and the GO gets a pass.

This same strategy has been at work since Obama took office.

Have RW pundits call him a socialist.

Have LW pundits call him a corporatist.

The former energizes Republicans.

The latter demoralizes Democrats.

And sadly, DU will continue to play its part in the medias little campaign to manipulate turnout come the election.

[mike_c]

31. they're just plain folks....

I mean, who doesn't make a couple million a month these days?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. If the Bushes got rich for destroying the republic...

And former president George W. Bush raked in $15 million within two years of leaving office, averaging about $110,000 per speech, Yahoo! News reported

If the Bushes got rich for destroying the republic the Clintons deserve a reward for trying to save it.

[Beacool]

33. What's with the constant mentions of their income?

The Roosevelts were wealthy, the Kennedys were too and those two families gave us three good presidents.

Furthermore, the Clintons were the poorest couple to enter the WH in decades. They made their money after leaving the WH, mostly through Bill's paid speeches and their book sales.

Bill could have laid back and enjoyed his newfound wealth. Instead, he established a foundation that has helped to better the lives of millions of people around the globe.

Therefore, I don't care what the naysayers on both sides of the political spectrum think of them.

[AtomicKitten]

35. The only candidate on either side of the aisle that can speak credibly on income inequality is ...

[quadrature]

36. if elected, will they stop this? ...nt

[Beaverhausen]

43. Hillary stopped being paid for speeches once she announced she's running

[quadrature]

53. is their Foundation still taking in money? ...nt

[geek tragedy]

57. why would their foundation stop fighting HIV and poverty?

You have a problem with that?

[quadrature]

62. Yes. they are drawing a salary, and the charitable payout ..

is laughable.

I got a big problem with that.

[geek tragedy]

63. No, you're spreading rightwing lies and horse manure, that's your problem.

Which is perfectly consistent with your posting history here.

1. The Clintons do not draw a salary from the Clinton Foundation. They are unpaid directors. See, e.g., this story from the Weekly Standard (which should be sufficiently rightwing for you to believe:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/men-make-top-8-most-highly-compensated-clinton-foundation-employees_876054.html



2. The Clinton foundation doesn't pay out a lot because it does most of its work in-house. So, your regurgitation of Rush Limbaugh's smear is also bullshit, as well as a very telling kind of bullshit for an alleged Democrat to spread here:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/

Limbaugh said "85 percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."

There’s a grain of truth here -- roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits. However, the foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it’s not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work, which is what it would take for Limbaugh to be correct.

The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

So, you can go back and tell your buddies at America Rising that you gave it your best, but that we're on to you chumps.

[quadrature]

64. OK, you have a point. But their political workers draw a salary.

on top of that,I would like to know why
Haiti needs luxury hotels,
and also,
why Tony Rodham is/was the best
person to run Haiti's gold operation.

[geek tragedy]

65. their political workers will be working on the campaign, not at the foundation.

If they're not working on the campaign, they're probably not political workers.

Why are there luxury hotels in Haiti? Because they want tourists.

Tony Rodham is an adult. Are there people who are going to cut him some slack because he's Hillary's brother? Of course. So what? That's going to be the case for whomever has any chance of being president.

[quadrature]

67. did Romney's offshore bank accounts look bad?

what about somebody who sets up
an offshore foundation?

[geek tragedy]

68. what are you babbling about? Clinton Foundation is a US foundation that files forms

with the federal government.

It does work overseas.

[quadrature]

70. I was refering to the 'Clinton Global Initiative' ...

which is set up in Canada (and other places?),
with the purpose(or not?) of
not filing with the US federal govt.

[geek tragedy]

71. What are you babbling about?

The CGI files US tax forms.

[Owl]

52. When is enough enough?

[Skidmore]

55. In the meantime,

the Koch brothers' continue to push the buying of elections and rake in money hand over fist. Their worth is $42B...as in billion.

[tabasco]

66. Glad they're not "broke" anymore. n/t

[Sgt Preston]

69. "No one is reading ‘Hard Choices,’ either." -- WP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/07/no-one-is-reading-hard-choices-either/