And yes they are bribes, whether Democrat or Republican, Senator or Secretary.
And the sheer size and scope of hers shows that to be more the case than ever. She took about $21 million in speaking fees to big corporations and corporate lobby groups in just about 2 years.
I don't listen to Rush but he was on when I got in the car today and I listened b/c he was on this topic and I think it's a hugely important issue that highlights her unfitness for office and the broader problems with our nation in general, where corruption has put us on the brink of losing the Great Experiment.
Anyway, she gets a standard $250,000 for a speech that's 20-30 minutes. That's it, a short speech, $250K in the bank.
For perspective apparently a corporation can get someone like Arnold Palmer for a full day including hanging out, playing golf, telling stories, the whole day with the top guy in the game for just $150,000.
So if you're a corporation putting together an event, are you going to pay Hillary $250K for a 20 minute speech versus $150K for a day of Arnold Palmer's time b/c you think she's so much more interesting and insightful and will be more appealing to your employees?
really? Of course not. Those payments are what ALL of these speaking fees are, ways to pay off people in power and skirt the laws that would prevent just writing them a check. So this absurd facade of "speaking fees" arises after the PAC reforms of the 70s, and continues unabated.
It even works for logrolling, where the senior Senator may need a vote from a junior member, and he turns down a speaking engagement but "recommends" his junior Senator. that becomes a political chip he can then cash in. This is how both parties influence the rank and file and esp. how they get the junior members in line, doling out access and money through the web of lobbyists and influence peddlers.
BTW, that doesn't count the $20+ million her husband got, including a LOT of that from foreign interests (like a $500K fee from the Russian company trying to buy US uranium mining rights with the deal in front of his wife for approval), nor the much larger amount "donated" to their slush fund foundation.
That same foundation has been giving out money to numerous political allies and friends over the years, millions upon millions that they use to shore up their power and influence.
It's beyond dirty. Also by contrast, when Reagan took a couple of million after he was out of office the media went up in arms about it and how it had the appearance of a payoff. The Clintons are taking in 100x that amount while still in office and the media aren't saying a word.
Bookmarks