2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumA Clinton "Democrat": Total Bill and Hillary speech income $153,000,000
Documentation and details:
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
Total Bill and Hillary Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: $153,669,691.00
Total Bill Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: $132,021,691.00
Total Hillary Clinton speech income, April 2013 thru March 2015:
TOTAL: $21,648,000.00
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Octafish
(55,745 posts)How many traitors, warmongers and banksters have gone to jail?
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)What did the two of them do that was worth $153 million in payoffs?
Wonder how many billions they'll pocket if they get the Presidency again?
Is politics simply a vehicle for that family's quest to become the richest individuals in the world?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)To one where Wall Street speculators can make billions by moving money from one place to another at the touch of a button.
Too bad about all the little people.
enough
(13,262 posts)They are much beloved, apparently.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)2012 16,253,500
2013 22,850,000
2014 20,222,000
Plus Millions more in consulting fees.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Reposted from The Sunlight Foundation under Creative Commons license
https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/12/01/super-pacs-dark-money-and-the-hillary-clinton-campaign-part-1/
by Melissa Yeager and Libby Watson
investigations
DEC. 1, 2015, 11:33 A.M.
Hillary Clinton. (Photo credit: Keith Kissel/Flickr)
We’re going to dive into the web of financing for all of the presidential candidates, but as we have looked into several Republican candidates already — like Ted Cruz’s plethora of super PACs and Right to Rise’s pro-Jeb Bush advertising — we’re going to start this exercise over on the Democratic Party side with Hillary Clinton.1
We've also delved even deeper into the Clinton money network, covering her campaign's web of dark money allies. But for now, let’s get started!
Players you should know
To start with, here are the names you need to know and how they fit under our current campaign finance system.2
Ready for Hillary PAC (hybrid super PAC)
Ready PAC (hybrid super PAC, formerly Ready for Hillary)
Hillary for America (candidate PAC)
Priorities USA Action (super PAC)
Correct the Record (super PAC)
American Bridge 21st Century (super PAC)
American Bridge 21st Century Foundation (501(c)(4))
American Independent Institute (501(c)(4))
Media Matters (501(c)(3))
The Bonner Group
Now that you know who is involved, here’s the story we know right now of the money backing Hillary. It's rather lengthy so in this post we'll cover Ready for Hillary, Ready PAC, and Priorities USA Action. We'll be looking at the rest later in the week.
Ready for Hillary
First of all, it’s important to point out that the Hillary Clinton political fundraising machine started a full two years before she declared she was running for president. (At least, the one actually associated with her name did.)
On Jan. 25, 2013, Ready for Hillary formally organized by filing paperwork with the FEC. Clinton was directly involved with the super PAC at that point — you may remember the “Ready for Hillary” bus? Clinton was promoting her new book “Hard Choices” at that time (much like Ben Carson is promoting his book "Gifted Hands" now) and doing speaking events around the country....
She collected $21,648,000 in speaking fees while she did this. Now she claims she didn't know if she would be running for president.
I don't get why people think she's dishonest.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)By Matea Gold May 12, 2015
Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations, another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as a dominant practice in the 2016 presidential race.
On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.
That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.
But Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation. The “Internet exemption” said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures, allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their sites. By adopting the measure, the FEC limited its online jurisdiction to regulating paid political ads.
The rules “totally exempt individuals who engage in political activity on the Internet from the restrictions of the campaign finance laws....
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS May 13, 2015, 10:00 AM
Hillary Clinton's campaign intends to coordinate directly with a newly formed super PAC able to receive unlimited donations, according to a Washington Post report.
The Democratic presidential candidate's campaign will work in conjunction with Correct the Record, an independent rapid-response team, previously a part of super PAC American Bridge, which conducts opposition research on Republican presidential candidates and possible GOP presidential candidates. The New York Times first reported Tuesday that Correct the Record would split from its parent organization to support the Clinton campaign.
Though Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules prohibit direct coordination between super PACs and declared candidates, Correct the Record believes it will be able to coordinate with Clinton without violating campaign finance regulations.
The FEC restricts paid internet political advertisements, making them subject to campaign spending limits and disclosure requirements. However, a 2006 FEC rule exempts "public communications" -- like unpaid posts on websites or blogs -- from such regulations. The rules were initially implemented as a safeguard against regulating the free speech of bloggers and other internet communications...
reformist2
(9,841 posts)
livetohike
(22,165 posts)apparent it wounds his enormous ego to know that. He sure talks about it often enough.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)While knowing she was running for president?
That really doesn't mean anything to you?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511635576#post4
livetohike
(22,165 posts)
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I personally know several people who are experts in their fields who go and speak at conferences and other events. They are paid for their expertise, because they are excellent speakers, etc. They go in, make their speech, get paid, and leave. They're not suddenly beholden to the group that hired them in some ethical sense.
I seriously do not get this argument.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Q: Do you think the government should make policy based on what the public, writ large, wants or on what the corporate interests want?
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)The government should make policy based on what is best for the nation. Often this is not what the public wants, or what corporate interests want.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I believe Hillary will make the best choices available to her. Sometimes these aren't the best choices. Compromise is necessary. Bernie seems unable to compromise, which means he will get absolutely nothing done.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Hillary is also in favour of getting corporations out of government:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/
I trust her.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Again that is proven by their current donations and the $21,648,000 she made in speaking fees 2013-2015.
They aren't giving her and the rest of the politicians that money because they are charitable. They are shelling out that money because they know they will get access to the levers of power.
Are you familiar with what the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) does?
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)Hold political power?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)And everyone else does it, so why shouldn't Hillary make money? You're just jealous!
Did I get that right? 
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)But you knew that.
No one else took 100 million cash in influence money. Only the Clintons, between their leaps in and out of holding powerful political positions.
It's not about her earning money, it's the conflict of interest for accepting the money, due to her political power as a government official.
If she or her spouse accept anything that benefits them personally (i.e. Speaking for money), while holding a position of power.
For example Bill 'earns' a cool million in 2 years for accepting offers to speak at several Heath Insurance Companies while Hillary is a Senator with the power to influence legislation.
This way it's easier (no need for money laundering)....... Like when you just get a cash bribe directly, from a suitcase full of money.
The Clintons lack of integrity is nothing to be jealous of.
Okay. Good question: sort of like, "Where's the proof that global warming is even happening?".
Geesah! Some folks delude themselves I guess.
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)I see.
It's not illegal in some other countries either. Of course most, if not all, are countries listed by Transparency International as the most corrupt countries in the world.
The US would be on that listed as well, but the list also accounts for citzens "perception" of whether the governance is corrupt.
In the US, it's 'perceptions' like yours that keep the US from a place on their "worst' corrupt list.
I'm not surprised though that most Americans don't understand the meaning of "Corruption" as it relates to benefiting personally due to positions of political power.
I didn't either until I became a Compliance Officer 8 years ago for a large Foriegn owned US corporation.
My job is to ensure the company does not engage in corruption activities. I have disapproved payments for travel costs for government speakers the company has wanted to engage. A 250,000 speaking fee, would never under any circumstances be allowable. Of course, this is according to the US Foreign Corrupt Practce Act, which applies to foreign government officials mainly.
In fact prior to my CO career I would have made the same justifications as you regarding the speaking fees. As such I wouldn't have an issue pulling the lever for her in the GE.
Regardless, after everything I've learned about corruption in my position, I recognize it when I see it. It's always devastating to the least powerful citizens of any country, whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant to this fact.
The Clintons level of corruption is beyond obscene. This is due to the vast amount of funds they have accepted, and the length of time it's been going on.
If all the speaking fees were secured after they both left their political careers it would not be an issue.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The projection level...it's OVER 9000!!!
livetohike
(22,165 posts)humble schtick at all.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts) 
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Fuck that shit. Seriously. We need to stop being a party run by the rich for the rich. There is another party for that shit.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Geez, come out and say it would ya? You're envious that nobody wants to pay to hear what you have to say?
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Where rainbow unicorns roam free.
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)Sounds more like a Cybergoth band then political discourse.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Darb
(2,807 posts)and I am kind of enjoying it.
Darb
(2,807 posts)grammar brings cred.
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)Worry about your own cred.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Yours? Not so much.
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)Next time try harder
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)Iong, look in the mirror and reevaluate their sense of morals and ethics. But who the fuck cares when there's Netflix, Playstation, the Kardashians and other things of major societal import to consume our daily lives. Don't let me forget Maury.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)They are two of the most well-known, respected and admired people in the world. Why shouldn't they command high speaking fees? Basically every former president and other prominent politician goes onto the speaking circuit. Why is it suddenly not ok for Hillary? Good for her, I say!
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)After they retire from politics.
Others do not get on the speaking circuit until after they are out.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Is H. Clinton not proud of the speeches she gave to bankers? Why?
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Do you have any proof that she's been ethically influenced by being hired by an organisation to give a speech? No, you don't, because there isn't any.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)I thought it was fairly obvious. Why would H. Clinton want to keep her speeches secret? What did she tell the bankers that she doesn't want the people to know?
But thanks for asking! Here's solid evidence that H. Clinton changes her position when she gets money:
Credit bill
http://billmoyers.com/story/elizabeth-warren-recalls-a-time-when-big-donors-may-have-changed-hillarys-vote/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/did-wall-street-buy-this-vote-from-clinton.html
Colombia trade deal
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/238313-clinton-changed-stance-on-trade-deal-after-donations-to
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Unless you can explain this another way?
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
The original study:
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
ABSTRACT
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
The last paragraph of their findings:
"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Again that is proven by their current donations and the $21,648,000 she made in speaking fees 2013-2015.
They aren't giving her and the rest of the politicians that money because they are charitable. They are shelling out that money because they know they will get access to the levers of power.
Are you familiar with what the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) does?
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)well-known, admired, and respected people in the world. Just like ALL companies do when they're looking for a speaker for a big gig. Just like MOST other well-known people do when they accept speaking fees. Are they buying Jerry Seinfeld's political influence when they pay him thousands and thousands of dollars to speak? It's not CHARITY - it's a transaction. We'll pay you x dollars, and you be our big headline speaker because you're famous and respected.
This argument makes no sense.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Can you?
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)This is a character argument - you think Hillary can be bought (to some larger degree than ANY politician can be bought) and I don't. You don't have any proof.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That isn't happening in a vacuum.
Address it. If it isn't a quid pro quo, why is it happening?
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Show me proof that Hillary, specifically, was given speaking money in exchange for political influence.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You've been shown the proof - absolute, unequivocal proof - that our system is completely corrupt.
She is running specifically to preserve that system.
Bernie is running specifically to change it.
That's what this campaign is all about.
Do you realize that we are ready to lose our status as a democratic state?
Democracy in an age of anxiety
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index provides a snapshot of the state of democracy worldwide for 165 independent states and two territories—this covers almost the entire population of the world and the vast majority of the world’s states (micro-states are excluded). The Democracy Index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Based on their scores on a range of indicators within these categories, each country is then itself categorised as one of four types of regime: “full democracies”; “flawed democracies”; “hybrid regimes”; and “authoritarian regimes”.
This is the eighth edition of the Democracy Index. It reflects the situation in 2015, a year in which democracy was tested in the face of war, terrorism, mass migration and other crises, and, in some cases, suffered serious setbacks. The title of this year’s report reflects the threat to democracy emanating from the fearful mood of our times, which informs the reactions of ordinary people and political elites alike. An increased sense of personal and societal anxiety and insecurity in the face of diverse perceived risks and threats—economic, political, social and security—is undermining democracy, which depends on a steadfast commitment to upholding enlightenment values (liberty, equality, fraternity, reason, tolerance and free expression) and fostering democratic institutions and a democratic political culture.
In many democracies, political elites worry about their inability to relate to the electorate and fear the challenge that populist parties pose. In some cases, established parties have colluded to exclude or marginalise the populists. In the face of terrorist threats, democratic governments have reacted in anti-democratic ways, calling into question freedom of speech or adopting draconian laws. In non-democratic countries, authoritarian political elites fear the threat from the masses and seek to bolster their rule by imprisoning opponents, restricting the media, limiting popular freedoms and repressing protest. Meanwhile, electorates are ever more anxious—about economic insecurity, about their personal safety, about the consequences of immigration, about the threat of terrorism—and angry that their concerns are not being represented by the established parties. This mood of fear and insecurity represents one of the main threats to democracy today.
Almost one-half of the world’s countries can be considered to be democracies, but, in our index, the number of “full democracies” is low, at only 20 countries; 59 countries are rated as "flawed democracies”. Of the remaining 88 countries in our index, 51 are “authoritarian” and 37 are considered to be “hybrid regimes”. As could be expected, the developed OECD countries dominate among “full democracies”; there are two Asian countries, one Latin American country (Uruguay) and one African country (Mauritius), which suggests that level of development is not a binding constraint, but is a constraint, nevertheless. Slightly less than one-half (48.4%) of the world’s population lives in a democracy of some sort, although only 8.9% reside in “full democracies”. Around 2.6bn people, more than one-third of the world’s population, still live under authoritarian rule (with a large share being, of course, in China).
“Flawed democracies” are concentrated in Latin America, eastern Europe and Asia...
http://64.37.52.189/~parsifal/EIU2015.pdf
aunt purl - They rank the US 20th out of 20 in their set of "full democracy" nations and we are dropping.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I trust that she will enact the policies of her platform to the best of her ability.
There is no proof that Hillary has exchanged political influence for speaking fees. Lumping her in with the system as a whole is disingenuous.
Hillary wants to change the system too. Bernie wants to tear it down. I don't want a revolution. I'm looking for someone who will continue Obama's progress and implement some of her own.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)Learn the definition.
Read about other countries acceptance of corruption and the devasting effects to the weakest citizens in those countries
You can learn about all this at Transparency International's website.
Then come back and advise why the Clintons acceptance of personal benefits via financial rewards gained through speaking fees, while they are governmental decision makers, would be an exception to the inevitable outcome of corruptive activities.
It should be something more substantial then " because you trust them"
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Obama was promising to renegotiate NAFTA. Swore up and down he was going to renegotiate it.
Goolsby (sp?) was caught telling the worried Canadians that Obama was just saying that for the elections.
What did he do?
Hillary is pulling the same, only her claims are on steroids.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)auntpurl
(4,311 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Check out this exchange where the poster is trying to justify the damage done by Free Trade Agreements:
Recursion: 65. Zero. Manufacturing jobs are not lives.
And we need to stop fetishizing them. We need to pay service workers more.
kristopher: 66. Bullshit. Those jobs ARE PEOPLES LIVES. And not just the workers, but their children have their world upended and their future prospects curtailed.
But you answered the question - human lives are, to the free trader, 100% fungible.
Recursion: 67. Thats nonsense. A job is not your life. It's only the weird nearly-religious aspect some parts of the left give to manufacturing jobs that makes it seem that way to you.
What's wrong with flipping burgers if it pays $17/hour? Is that less "noble" to you than making a car?
Recursion: 71. You are against fast food workers making a livable wage?
Man, speaking of karma...
Recursion: 73. Yep. I want service jobs to pay what manufacturing jobs used to. You don't.
I'm speaking up for working people, you're speaking up for nostalgia. Now go away; you're not a friend of workers.
Why you're against fast food workers making $17/hour is absolutely beyond me, and it's incredibly callous, and I'm done talking to you.
My recurring reply:
I've never been one to wish ill on others, but I truly beg karma to give you a huge dose of what you deserve. A massive, huge, completely overwhelming dose of the pain you so blithely brush away.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511630771
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)what should to be called bribes and payoffs, laundering money through Foundations, monopolies on mainstream media--has turned into legalese that lets all this slide. Creating loopholes has become not only an art but a sport.
The neo con legacy opened the door to not only white collar crime but war profiteering and many others...by changing the language used in law.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Actors and sports figures DO something for their money.
And so do politicians.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)politicians, who are not on the government payroll, or in a campaign, making speeches, writing books, etc.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)That's what they do for their money. Because that was the transaction - you show up here, and we'll pay you x dollars. It isn't complicated.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)sarcasm thingy here for those w/o the gene
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Conflicts of Interest in Government
HomeMarkkula Center for Applied EthicsFocus Areas Government EthicsResourcesWhat is Government Ethics?Conflicts of Interest in Government
Judy Nadler and Miriam Schulman
These materials were prepared for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics program in Government Ethics by Senior Fellow Judy Nadler and Communications Director Miriam Schulman. The Center provides training in local government ethics for public officials. For more information, contact Hana Callaghan.
WHAT ARE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST?
Because of the multiple roles individuals play in their daily lives, they inherently possess many different interests and loyalties. At any given time these interests may compete. Such conflicts are a part of life and are unavoidable. Public officials, as stewards of the public trust, are required to put the public's interest before their own. Impropriety occurs when an officeholder, faced with conflicting interests, puts his or her personal or financial interest ahead of the public interest. In the simplest terms, the official reaps a monetary or other reward from a decision made in his or her public capacity.
The most common conflicts in local government happen when officeholders face a vote on real property/land use issues that affect their own holdings. Other examples include voting to grant a benefit to a company in which the officeholder owns stock or even to a non-profit organization on whose board the officeholder may sit.
When a conflict of interest is possible, an officeholder is expected to abstain from the discussion and the vote.
WHAT DO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST HAVE TO DO WITH ETHICS?
Public service is always about protecting the common good, which may be defined as the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone-police, fire, parks, libraries, and other services. A public servant must always put the common good ahead of any personal, financial, or political benefit they might receive from a decision about such matters as where to situate a park or who should collect the garbage.
Also, conflicts of interest interfere with the basic ethical principle of fairness-treating everyone the same. A public official should not take unfair advantage of his or her position by voting on a matter that could benefit them at the expense of others.
Finally, conflicts of interest undermine trust. They make the public lose faith in the integrity of governmental decision-making processes.
WHAT ETHICAL DILEMMAS DO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST PRESENT?
Many times, government officials honestly believe that they are not being unduly influenced by their personal stake in an issue. They may feel, to the contrary, that their interest in the matter gives them special insight into the subject. A city councilmember who ran on a platform of revitalizing the downtown, for example, may feel entirely justified in supporting measures to improve the area, even if part of the benefit of such improvement might go to their own business. They might argue that they understand the problems of a downtown business because they own one. They might claim, further, that their constituents elected them specifically to represent this interest.
But conflict of interest laws prevent such partiality. First, it's almost impossible for individuals to determine whether they are being fair when their self-interest is involved. Also, as the Institute for Local Self-Government puts it, "The law is aimed at the perception, as well as the reality, that a public officials personal interests may influence a decision." Even the appearance of impropriety undermines the public's faith that the process is fair.
Another common misconception about conflicts of interest is that officeholders are absolved of their responsibility merely by being transparent about their stake in the issue. It is not sufficient for government officials to make conflicts public. They must take themselves out of the decision-making process altogether.
This includes discussion and debate as well as actual voting. Abstention is only half the requirement. A public official is also expected to refrain from public pronouncements and private arm twisting on decisions in which he or she has an interest.
Note, also, that the interest may be personal as well as financial. Helping one's fraternal order to obtain rent-free space in a public building is a form of conflict of interest, especially if it improves one's standing in the organization. Being elected president of a community group because of such favors might prove to be in an officeholder's personal and political interest when the next election rolls around. Conversely, public office should not be used to punish one's personal and political enemies. Voting no on your annoying neighbor's reasonable zoning waiver request is another form of putting private ahead of public interest.
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/government-ethics/resources/what-is-government-ethics/conflicts-of-interest-in-government/
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)She's playing the system. She, and everyone who gave her money knew she was running. Give 10-1 odds the reason she isn't releasing the transcripts of the speeches is that she talked about her coming campaign.
First of all, it’s important to point out that the Hillary Clinton political fundraising machine started a full two years before she declared she was running for president. (At least, the one actually associated with her name did.)
On Jan. 25, 2013, Ready for Hillary formally organized by filing paperwork with the FEC. Clinton was directly involved with the super PAC at that point — you may remember the “Ready for Hillary” bus? Clinton was promoting her new book “Hard Choices” at that time (much like Ben Carson is promoting his book "Gifted Hands" now) and doing speaking events around the country.
While most of Ready for Hillary's spending was what you would expect, one did catch our eye: $359 for Camp Bow Wow in Las Vegas. Guess somebody’s pet needed some boarding!
Between January 2013 and when Clinton announced her intention to run for president in April 2015, Ready for Hillary raised about $12.9 million and spent $12.1 million. It ended the year in 2014 with $748,469 cash on hand.
Some notable donors during that time include billionaire Warren Buffett ($25,000) and Patricia Hoppey, the founder of direct mail marketing company Pivot ($60,000).
On its website, 270 Strategies documents its involvement in Ready for Hillary and offers it as case study in “tapping into organic grassroots energy around a potential Hillary Clinton presidential run.” It notes various steps taken during the 2014 campaign to “get out the vote” and to recruit volunteers to create “a movement nearly 4 million strong.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511635654
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Oh great swami, is it going to rain today?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)She activated her first superPac at almost the same time she started her speaking jaunt from 2013-2015.
She was busy collecting $20,648,000 during the two year window she created to think over something that was predecided. Besides her speaking fees, her Pac collected...
First of all, it’s important to point out that the Hillary Clinton political fundraising machine started a full two years before she declared she was running for president. (At least, the one actually associated with her name did.)
On Jan. 25, 2013, Ready for Hillary formally organized by filing paperwork with the FEC. Clinton was directly involved with the super PAC at that point — you may remember the “Ready for Hillary” bus? Clinton was promoting her new book “Hard Choices” at that time (much like Ben Carson is promoting his book "Gifted Hands" now) and doing speaking events around the country.
While most of Ready for Hillary's spending was what you would expect, one did catch our eye: $359 for Camp Bow Wow in Las Vegas. Guess somebody’s pet needed some boarding!
Between January 2013 and when Clinton announced her intention to run for president in April 2015, Ready for Hillary raised about $12.9 million and spent $12.1 million. It ended the year in 2014 with $748,469 cash on hand.
Some notable donors during that time include billionaire Warren Buffett ($25,000) and Patricia Hoppey, the founder of direct mail marketing company Pivot ($60,000).
On its website, 270 Strategies documents its involvement in Ready for Hillary and offers it as case study in “tapping into organic grassroots energy around a potential Hillary Clinton presidential run.” It notes various steps taken during the 2014 campaign to “get out the vote” and to recruit volunteers to create “a movement nearly 4 million strong.”
On April 12, 2015, Hillary Clinton announced her intention to run for president, and Ready for Hillary evolved into its next iteration — Ready PAC — which we'll discuss further below.
That turned into:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511635654
think
(11,641 posts)For rigging interest rates. These banks have routinely been found to break US laws and were at the fucking heart of the economic crisis selling those worthless derivatives.
Hillary if president would appoint people to police these same banks that just paid her millions to speak
She already says she won't support passing new Glass Steagall legislation to break up these criminal banks.
Why should voters trust her to make sure these banks quit violating the laws?
Eric Holder went soft on the banks and now he's back helping to lobby and defend them.
America is sick and tired of this corrupt behavior.
Again. Why should voters trust her after taking all that money from those banks?
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)I don't think she went out on a limb in making explicit promises, and my first guess is that she said nothing at all of any significance; that she is just waiting for the right time to roll them out and make her critics look like the Republican Persecutors her campaign is built on.
My second guess goes to the possibility that there is something to hide. In that case, I'll guess that she explicitly said in some way that she was definitely running for president. She defended taking that $21,648,000 in speaking fees between 4/13 and 3/15 by claiming she wasn't sure she was running, thus evading a conflict of interest allegation. But I'm of the mind that she needed to give them something from 'the inside' and that it was a definitive statement that she was, indeed, running.
Just spitballing.
MadBadger
(24,089 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Probably doesn't bode well for the rest of us if she gets elected though.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)He'll be in high demand -- both as a speaker (like Clinton) and as a corporate board member (Ford).
