Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

amborin

(16,631 posts)
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 08:05 PM Apr 2016

2014: HRC got $10.2 million speaking fees, including $4.6 million from groups lobbying Congress

http://time.com/3889577/hillary-clinton-paid-speeches-lobbyists-influence/

HRC got $10.2 million in 2014, her first full calendar year after leaving the State Department.

Groups with giant lobbying budgets gave Clinton big speaking fees ahead of 2016 presidential campaign.

Almost half of the money from Hillary Clinton’s speaking engagements came from corporations and advocacy groups that were lobbying Congress at the same time.

Of that, $4.6 million came from groups that also spent on lobbying Congress that year, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

For critics, the arrangement shows that many of people who booked an appearance saw it as another way to gain influence with a leading contender to become the next President.

“It’s big money. They’re spending it because they have far greater sums riding on those decisions that they’re trying to shape,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “Corporations or associations must justifiably make these investments because everyone knew for many years that Clinton would always remain a power broker. Every man or woman on the street thought Hillary Clinton would run again.”



7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
2014: HRC got $10.2 million speaking fees, including $4.6 million from groups lobbying Congress (Original Post) amborin Apr 2016 OP
Good for her, recognizing her monetary value as is customary for men, and breaking that ceiling. seabeyond Apr 2016 #1
LOL, I assume you only want her because she is a woman, but Warren was 1000 times better. nt Logical Apr 2016 #4
You ASSume incorrectly. seabeyond Apr 2016 #5
LOL, calling me an ass like that? Are you 10 years old? LOL. nt Logical Apr 2016 #6
" I assume you only want her because she is a woman" seabeyond Apr 2016 #7
And she was a private citizen at the time. Why do you hate the Free Market so much? n/t SFnomad Apr 2016 #2
Ick... AzDar Apr 2016 #3
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»2014: HRC got $10.2 milli...