
Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US government interests - Oatseller
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/99b5f98f78a34d3f9febfd513bb4d206/firms-paid-clinton-speeches-have-us-govt-interests
======
protomyth
I still wish we had a Constitutional amendment that restricted federal
employees and appointed / elected officials for a period of 5 years from
working from any firm they had contact(1) with in their duties. It should also
govern donations to charities run by said people. That and getting rid of
every corporate deduction in the tax code would clear quite a bit of
corruption out of the system.

I doubt we'll ever get either. A simple tax system means one of the chief ways
politicians reward donors goes away, and the speech / job thing is just plain
too lucrative.

1) the exact wording is more for lawyers than me

~~~
maxerickson
So if we pass enough rules the will of the voters should eventually take
precedence?

I wonder what incremental changes we could make to get people to go vote their
interest and to more carefully examine how elected officials make use of the
vast power handed to them.

~~~
protomyth
> So if we pass enough rules the will of the voters should eventually take
> precedence?

Its a bit more about removing some of the incentives for "bad" behavior. These
two are the most problematic to being fair and honest in government.

------
oarsinsync
> Clinton has said she can be trusted to spurn her donors on critical issues,
> noting that President Barack Obama was tough on Wall Street

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

------
marze
These are companies that have a responsibility to shareholders to spend funds
to benefit the firm.

Obviously they feel the quarter million is well spent, as a bribe to influence
government actions.

Anyone who thinks the bribes don't have the possibility to change a
politician's actions is quite gullible.

------
okonomiyaki3000
Can we all stop pretending they paid for her speeches?

~~~
ZenoArrow
Are you implying someone else paid for her speeches instead, or that she gave
the speeches for free?

~~~
pdabbadabba
I think GP is implying that it isn't really speeches that they were paying
for.

------
puppetmaster3
More on HRC:

[http://youtube.com/watch?v=wK2K5v5bm0Q](http://youtube.com/watch?v=wK2K5v5bm0Q)

------
lawnchair_larry
Speech money is bribe money, plain and simple. These firms don't have any
interest in hearing her speech.

~~~
pdabbadabba
> These firms don't have any interest in hearing her speech.

Of course they do. Having Hillary Clinton speak helps to cement and perpetuate
a firm's status and influence in its industry.

Imagine your employer were to host such a speech. Who would they invite?
Business partners, clients, investors...

------
katedye
Every firm has government interests. Its naive to think that $225k has any
meaningful sway

~~~
shkkmo
While 225k might be chump change to the corporations; it's naive to think that
$225k doesn't have any meaningful sway with the Clintons. Especially given
this statement Clinton made regarding the speaking fees:

> "You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only
> dead broke, but in debt," Clinton said. "We had no money when we got there,
> and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses,
> for Chelsea's education.

------
jkot
Why $225k is too much? Bill Clinton and Al Gore take similar money. Well known
political activists take between $50k and $20k per speech. Actors are charging
millions for 20 minute episode. That money seems fair for such prominent
speaker.

~~~
Grishnakh
Actors are paid millions to star in movies that are seen by millions of
people. More importantly, actors don't run your country or pass laws which
affect you personally. If you don't like an actor, it's easy to not watch his
movie. If you don't like a politician, you're stuck with her if she gets
elected.

Why do people like you always rush to defend obvious bribery anyway?

~~~
jkot
Companies are investing into diversity, for example Intel will invest $300M
over a few years. Hiring prominent feminist seems like a good way to do that.

Also such event often makes profit on donations.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "Hiring prominent feminist seems like a good way to do that."

Then you should be looking to vote for Bernie Sanders.

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/09/i-am-a-...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/09/i-am-
a-woman-voting-for-best-feminist-bernie-sanders-president-hillary-clinton)

------
whoiskevin
We have an opportunity to elect the first women as President of the United
States I hope we aren't going to pick on small things and ignore that
opportunity. Unless she is proven to be any different than any previous
President your choices are elect the first women as President or Trump. You
decide.

~~~
ZenoArrow
The first women president is likely to be remembered for quite a while to
come. Do you really want that person to be Hilary Clinton?

Let me put it to you another way... If Bernie had been elected, it's highly
likely the vice president would have been Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren
would then have a great platform if she wanted to run for president. Wouldn't
you prefer Elizabeth Warren was the first female president over Hilary
Clinton?

------
pdabbadabba
Can't say any of this is surprising...or even interesting. Big shock:
companies that have enough money to pay a quarter of a million dollars to have
Hillary Clinton speak also have lobbied the government. I think its pretty
comical that people seriously think that these companies are buying real
favors from the Secretary of State for only $225,000. Hillary doesn't need the
money that badly, and if she really were selling favors, you can bet they'd be
more than $225,000!

That said, this is a lesson in why public officials should be concerned about
the _appearance_ of impropriety, and not just substantive impropriety. The
former can still do a lot of damage (both to yourself, and to faith in
government) whether you've done anything else wrong or not. It doesn't look
good to public officials to be giving paid speeches while they are still in
office.

~~~
jessaustin
Sure, HRC wouldn't cross the street for $200k. However, she and Bill have
given speeches like that on a regular basis for years, to the same groups of
people. Their campaigns and charitable organizations have been funded by those
people too. You don't think that eventually, the cumulative tens of millions
of dollars might have an effect on their thinking and decisions?

~~~
pdabbadabba
> You don't think that eventually, the cumulative tens of millions of dollars
> might have an effect on their thinking and decisions?

And I'm sure all these donors' interests are aligned, right?

And, to be a little less flippant, I do think that the company a person keeps
affects a person's thinking. So if a company can buy their way into Hillary
Clinton's circle, I accept that they have managed to buy _some_ amount of
influence. But I think this influence is negligible compared to Clinton's
formal advisers and organic professional network. You also have to remember
that most of these companies have far more effective ways of influencing
government than paying for some lousy speeches, none of which is Clinton's
doing.

~~~
jordanb
> And I'm sure all these donors' interests are aligned, right?

Eh? I think they're broadly aligned. They're aligned when it comes to how
corporations and executives should be treated by the courts and regulatory
agencies. They're aligned on the extent and structure of free trade pacts.
They're aligned on corporate taxation. They're aligned with Bill Clinton's
claim that the only thing wrong with the American economy is a "skills gap."

Sure there's going to be disagreement (often severe) on particular points here
and there but the broad thrust the economic "Washington Consensus" that Bill
Clinton championed is a point of alignment among Clinton's donor class.

------
uniacid
Surprised the Bernie bots are still kicking, this seems like more about
nothing than something.

Where's the evidence of any such said corruption?

Just because they received money for speeches doesn't make them corrupt, and
if you believe it does well then prove it with evidence you can back up but
don't put out false claims. Yes she has gotten a good deal of money from
speeches but it isn't the only politician out there (present or past) doing
them for large amounts of money.

It's one thing to say you're influenced by lobbyist groups donating to your
campaign and whole other to say the speeches are used to influence your
policies, they're two separate things.

And even while HRC has gotten a decent amount of donations given to her
campaign it's a very small piece of the pie that is shelled out by
Corporations and Lobbyist groups, look at the other side for example, do you
think they aren't COMPLETELY influenced by lobbyist groups? They practically
own the Republican party.

Anyways as I said, more about nothing than something.

