Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her
From: vox.com, by: Jonathan Allen, on: May 16, 2015, see the article HERE.
Garnet92’s commentary: Why on God’s green earth would anyone pay six figures to listen to Hillary Clinton talk? She’s not an inspirational uplifting speaker that can electrify a crowd – she’s not the rousing speaker that Bill was. Why then would large companies and groups, otherwise prudently spending their funds, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear the former First Lady, former unaccomplished Senator, and failed Secretary of State flap her gums about any subject? That’s a good question for which there is only one answer: she COULD become the President of the United States and those entities who paid her a speaking fee were speculating; guaranteeing themselves a place at the table o’plenty if she becomes the keeper of the purse.
Almost a decade ago, as Hillary Clinton ran for re-election to the Senate on her way to seeking the presidency for the first time, the New York Times reported on her unusually close relationship with Corning, Inc., an upstate glass titan. Clinton advanced the company’s interests, racking up a big assist by getting China to ease a trade barrier. And the firm’s mostly Republican executives opened up their wallets for her campaign.
During Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family’s foundation. And, last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.
In the laundry-whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it’s the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn’t go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.
The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different than the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions. Her federally required financial disclosure was released to media late Friday, a time government officials and political candidates have long reserved for dumping news they hope will have a short shelf life.
Together, Hillary and Bill Clinton cleared $25 million on the lecture circuit over the last 16 months, according to a Hillary Clinton’s personal financial disclosure required of presidential candidates. A lot of the focus will naturally go toward the political argument that Clinton’s wealth makes her out of touch. The US has had plenty of good rich presidents and bad rich presidents. What’s more important is whether they are able to listen to all of the various interests without being unduly influenced by any of them.
There’s a reason government officials can’t accept gifts: They tend to have a corrupting effect. True, Hillary Clinton wasn’t a government official at the time the money was given. But it is very, very, very hard to see six-figure speaking fees paid by longtime political boosters with interests before the government — to a woman who has been running for president since the last time she lost — as anything but a gift.
Who gave and gave and gave and lobbied?
Corning’s in good company in padding the Clinton family bank account after lobbying the State Department and donating to the foundation. Qualcomm and cut $25,000 checks to the now-defunct Ready for Hillary SuperPAC. Hillary Clinton spoke to their companies on the same day, October 14, 2014. She collected more than half a million dollars from them that day, adding to the $225,500 had paid her to speak eight months earlier.did that, too. Irwin Jacobs, a founder of Qualcomm, and Marc Benioff, a founder of , also
And Microsoft, the American Institute of Architects, AT&T, SAP America, Oracle and Telefonica all paid Bill Clinton six-figure sums to speak as Hillary Clinton laid the groundwork for her presidential campaign.
And that list, which includes Clinton Foundation donors, is hardly the end of it. There’s a solid set of companies and associations that had nothing to do with the foundation but lobbied State while Clinton was there and then paid for her to speak to them. Xerox, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, in addition to Corning, all lobbied Clinton’s department on trade matters and then invited her to earn an easy check.
By this point, most Clinton allies wish they had a button so they didn’t have to go to the trouble of rolling their eyes at each new Clinton money story. The knee-jerk eye-roll response to the latest disclosure will be that there’s nothing new to see here. But there’s something very important to see that is different than the past stories. This time, it’s about Hillary Clinton having her pockets lined by the very people who seek to influence her. Not in some metaphorical sense. She’s literally being paid by them.
That storyline should be no less shocking for the fact that it is no longer surprising. The skimpy fig leaf of timing, that the speeches were paid for when she was between government gigs, would leave Adam blushing. And while most Democrats will shrug it off — or at least pretend to — it’s the kind of behavior voters should take into account when considering whether they want to give a candidate the unparalleled power of the presidency. It goes to the most important, hardest-to-predict characteristic in a president: judgment.
Read Clinton’s full financial disclosure report here:
NOTE: to see Hillary’s Financial Disclosure Report, click the “Download” icon on the Scribd bar below the image. Clicking on the report image will not download the report.
I would encourage our readers to look at Hillary’s Financial Disclosure Report. It is eye-opening. We’ve all heard about the outrageous speaking fees charged by both Hillary and Bill – they’re all in there. Frankly, I don’t pay much attention to Bill’s speaking events. He is a former two-term president and is considered by some to have been a successful one. He is a dynamic personality and I can understand how some organizations would feel justified paying $250,000 for a Bill Clinton speech. But Hillary is another matter. The general consensus is that she is a ho-hum personality as an public speaker and not likely to inspire much more than drowsiness in her audience. So again, I ask the rhetorical question, why would large organizations pay her large fees to speak?
Her speaking fees are labeled as “honorariums” which are defined as: “
I looked at all of Hillary’s “honorariums” and came away astonished at the number and amount. Starting on page 5 and extending through page 9 (January through December of 2014) she was paid for 45 speaking events. Without a printing calculator on hand (and being lazy), I only tallied up the first six months of 2014 and the total was $6,481,500. Over SIX MILLION DOLLARS for 27 speaking engagements in the first six months of 2014. She AVERAGED $240,056 for EACH speaking engagement. She AVERAGED $1,080,250 a MONTH for the first six months of 2014. Not bad work, if you can get it.
Three questions immediately come to the forefront for me: 1) how the hell is she going to convince the “middle class” that she is “one of them” and understands their concerns and, 2) does she really expect the reasonably intelligent among us to believe that these organizations paid the former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State an average of $240,000 just to hear her speak – expecting nothing in return and, 3) are we supposed to believe that these entities paying these exorbitant honorariums aren’t expecting something in return (if she is elected president). In other words, a quid pro quo.
It’s no secret, I’m not a fan of Hillary Clinton. I think that she is as crooked and criminal as they come. I think that she bears much of the responsibility for the Benghazi murders and she intentionally used a secret personal server to conduct her official government correspondence to prevent FOIA requests or Congressional subpoenas from gaining access to damming evidence. I wouldn’t hire her to walk my dog, yet here she is, a viable democrat candidate for president.
I hope that the facts presented here will help to sway a few of you Hillary supporters that she is not worthy of your vote.