Bill's Lucrative Speaking Engagements Create Potential Conflicts For Hillary

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Bill's Lucrative Speaking Engagements Create Potential Conflicts For Hillary stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 11-20-08 10:59 PM   |   Updated: 12-21-08 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Bill Clinton

It would be interesting to know how the average New York voter would respond when told that during the past three years their Senator and her spouse personally received $2.1 million from such major banks as Goldman Sachs ($800,000), Lehman Bros. ($300, 000), Citigroup ($425,000) and Deutsche Bank ($300,000).

The money -- honoraria payments to former President Clinton -- demonstrate that the conflicts between Bill Clinton's multi-million dollar financial entanglements and his wife's possible selection as Secretary of State are just as relevant in the case of the elected office Hillary Clinton currently holds, raising to front and center the same glaring conflicts of interest that have gone largely overlooked during Hillary's eight years in the Senate.

Sources close to the Clintons sought to justify the ex-president's speaking fees by noting that wealthy spouses of other Senators, including the wives of John Kerry of Massachusetts and John McCain of Arizona, have multi-million dollar fortunes, often invested in the stocks of companies that stand to gain or lose as a result of tax and regulatory decisions made by Congress.

Still, the Clintons' situation has some particularly egregious aspects. The New York Senator has been as much the beneficiary as her husband of the up to $10 million a year in honoraria Bill has earned. Almost all of the Clintons' assets are held jointly, and they file a joint income tax return.

The potential for conflict of interest in this situation is most easily visible in the case of major legislation presently under consideration in Washington. If Hillary stays in the Senate, the most pressing issue will be the financial crisis. She has already voted for the $700 billion bailout bill, which is likely to be only the first step in federal attempts to pull the economy out of its nosedive.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Senator Clinton has not only received campaign contributions from the investment and securities industries -- industries with huge stakes in the outcome of measures almost certain to be taken up in 2009-10 -- but Bill and Hillary together have also taken as personal income, for their own use, millions of dollars paid to Bill in the form of honoraria, running from $125,000 to $325,000 for a single speech to interest groups directly affected by his wife's legislative position. The Clintons are not alone in the practice, but they have raised the stakes to unprecedented heights. In 2006, for example, Joe Lieberman's wife spoke to the Jewish Community Relations Council in Philadelphia, the Jewish Federation of Central Alabama, and the Junior League of Dayton making a total of $34,000 --- chump change compared to the $10,232,000 (yes, that's ten million+) Bill Clinton made in honoraria the same year.

Looking just at the finance industry over the past three years, in 2007 three major investment banking firms -- Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. and Citigroup - already on center stage in the financial downturn, each paid Bill Clinton $150,000, for a total of $450,000, for single speeches to company officials and their guests. The year before that, 2006, the Mortgage Bankers Association, Citigroup and Lehman paid Clinton a total of $600,000. In 2005, Deutsche Bank paid $300,000 for two speeches; Goldman Sachs paid $525,000 for three appearances in Paris, Greensboro, Ga. and Kiawah Island, S.Car. In 2004, Bill Clinton's honoraria included $250,000 from Citigroup and $125,000 from Goldman Sachs.

This $2.25 million does not include payments to Bill Clinton from such closely-related firms as Swedish industrial holding company Investor AB ($325,000), Dutch real estate investment company OVG Rotterdam ($250,000); U.S. real estate developer Cushman and Wakefield ($300,000); General Motors ($200,000) which is pleading for a piece of the bailout; the National Apartment Association ($150.000); the National Association of Realtors ($125,000); the Standard Bank of South Africa ($150,000); and the National Multi-Housing Council ($150,000).

The involvement of the financial and real estate sectors in domestic politics is immense, no matter which way you look at it. So far this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the investment and securities industry has given a total of $53 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates; and real estate has put up $51.1 million. The courts have ruled that these contributions do not, except under highly unusual circumstances, constitute bribes or illegal gratuities; instead, they are simply part of the business of serving in public office.

Philippe Reines, Senator Clinton's spokesman, responded to an inquiry regarding any potential conflict of interest between her large income from honoraria paid to her husband by the industries which are subject to regulation (or largesse) noted that the Senator "files an annual personal financial disclosure, which delineates every penny President Clinton receives from speaking, as well as every general income source. The whole point of requiring the 535 members to do that annually is to provide transparency." Asked whether the millions of dollars in direct payments from finance and real estate companies to Bill Clinton pose an ethical dilemma for Senator Clinton when she votes on measures such as the $700 billion bailout bill, which provides subsidies to the same firms which pay her husband, Reines said the "example of the bailout is misleading, in that every member who voted for it benefits in some way from saving the financial system from collapse - unless they keep their life's worth in gold ingots."

It would be interesting to know how the average New York voter would respond when told that during the past three years their Senator and her spouse personally received $2.1 million from such major ba...
It would be interesting to know how the average New York voter would respond when told that during the past three years their Senator and her spouse personally received $2.1 million from such major ba...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
77
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- sufi66 I'm a Fan of sufi66 30 fans permalink
photo

I don't understand why an ex-public official is allowed to receive speaking fees for anything simply because he or she is an ex-anything.

After all, they get rich through book deals, get generous pensions, and life-long medical benefits. They don't need the money and it gives the appearance of cashing in on public service.

A change in law is needed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:31 AM on 11/21/2008

Are you for real? You want a law to outlaw people receiving payment for speaking. WOW!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 AM on 11/21/2008
- sufi66 I'm a Fan of sufi66 30 fans permalink
photo

Only when they are obviously cashing in.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 AM on 11/21/2008
- vippy I'm a Fan of vippy 67 fans permalink

I would like to know the money and why Bill Clinton was paid from Colombia. Same with GWB now. I bet it has to do with the drugs which they tell us is for the "war on drugs."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:28 AM on 11/21/2008
- aurelio23 I'm a Fan of aurelio23 4 fans permalink
photo

Tom Edsal, I would like to see your face and perhaps glimpse at your twisted mind, if tomorrow a Bin Laden deputy offers you 300,000 dollars to talk about whales in the Artic or the sex life of retired public notaries at one of their meetings in Kabul. Or the Firemen's Union of Racoon Trail in Oregon offers you 10,000 dollars to speak about wind energy. And so on. They want to hear what you have to say. It does not mean that you are to become part of their act. I can not blame anyone for getting paid for a public speaking engagement; unfortunately in your case, if your rationale is developed as you did on this articles, not even the Firemen would want to hear you.
My warden used to tell me that being objective, even f some one is about to throw the switch, is still proof of a clean mind and a happy heart! Eat your vegetables!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:16 AM on 11/21/2008
- slobone I'm a Fan of slobone 5 fans permalink

Never mind his speaking fees, let's take a second to consider his BIG MOUTH... can he really be trusted not to undermine Obama the way he's been doing ever since his nomination?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:33 AM on 11/21/2008
- kevinw I'm a Fan of kevinw 11 fans permalink

You are so insightful as a commentator. Bill Clinton is the first and only member of the political class that has accepted fees for speaking. OMG!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­. He is not running or being appointed to a position. So that would mean that no one could be appointed to a position if a member of their family received fees for speeches, or motivational talks, or consulting events. So who does that leave. We would probably have to appoint Edsall because I can't imagine anyone paying to hear him speak.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 AM on 11/21/2008

LMAO, my thoughts exactly! Show me one person in congress who hasn't taken money for corporations and I'll show you someone who isn't in congress.

What exactly is the point of this "news" article other than the same tired crapola from here bashing the C's.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:26 AM on 11/21/2008

Apparently the President elect disagrees with Edsall and about 80% of the posters here. I voted for Obama for his intellect and foresight and am glad to see him exercising both, regardless of what the extremes have to say.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 AM on 11/21/2008
- darlingdem I'm a Fan of darlingdem 3 fans permalink

These are just the Clintons' DOMESTIC conflicts of interest.

What I'd like to see now are foreign sources of income and donations. I can't imagine that there aren't numerous conflicts of interest and entanglements.

What is the Obama team thinking? Why do the rules that others have to be vetted by not apply to the Clintons? I keep reading that they're only looking forward with the Clintons. Why is that? Don't they believe that the Clintons' past behavior and dealings are a pretty good indicator of how they'll conduct themselves in the future? They are SO CRASS...SO SHAMELESS.­..and, I believe, CORRUPT. I'm still shocked that Obama would do this.

I truly hope he doesn't regret this decision. We will all pay the price if this ends up being a bad move.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 AM on 11/21/2008

I read that Bill got someone from Khazakstan a position on OSEC in exchange for contributions to his fund....th­at's definitely going to be a conflict of interest for his wife in her new position. Considering the uproar over visits from the Chinese to the White House way back when, and our reluctance to make it a serious issue, I don't think anyone cares.

I don't think it's wrong to ask Democrats to prove to the country that they are different and they can do government better. The "appearance of impropriety" used to be a strong social control in the country. It's clear that it's not anymore--too many lawyers in office perhaps. Anyone else up for bringing that back?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 AM on 11/21/2008
photo

What a bunch of crap.

President Clinton has demonstrated his integrity to the American people, and in his philanthropy, to the world.

Is there anyone reading this that would not trade the waining days of the Clinton Administration for the current fiascos?

Name one other spouse of a Cabinet member or nominee that was considered a concern.

The only irony is that the Clinton's know that the limelight and controversy is positive PR.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 AM on 11/21/2008
- darlingdem I'm a Fan of darlingdem 3 fans permalink

To imusintheevening:

If it weren't for Monicagate, impeachment and America's serious case of Clinton fatigue, the 2000 election never would have been close enough for Bush and the Repubs to steal. Gore would have waltzed into the White House. So Bill deserves some of the blame for the hell that Bush and Cheney have put this country, and the world, through during the past eight years.

Since Bush is now widely considered to be the worst President in American history, the Clinton era looks pretty good in comparison. But the the truth is, there was alot NOT to like about the Clinton years.

SO PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 AM on 11/21/2008
- kevinw I'm a Fan of kevinw 11 fans permalink

If the world has Clinton fatique, who is paying all that money to hear him speak?. I think you just hate the fact that he is till popular and succeeding.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:09 AM on 11/21/2008
photo

Apparently, there are some nerves here.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:23 PM on 11/21/2008

Yeah, your right. People had jobs, making decent money, could afford a home and a car. Had extra money for vacations and to buy trivial things not just what we needed to survive.

What a nightmare that was!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:30 AM on 11/21/2008
- punkingale I'm a Fan of punkingale 5 fans permalink
photo

Maybe Al Gore should have welcomed Bill Clinton campaigning for him. He did not!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:29 PM on 11/21/2008
- jackstpaul I'm a Fan of jackstpaul 9 fans permalink

Bill's performance as Pres. is irrelevant. How could anyone be worse than W., by the way?

Everyone's spouse is an issue. It's just that none of them are so high-profile as an Ex-Pres. who's made $100 million+ in 8 years, has financial and political ties/allegiances in virtually every corner of the globe, and will get as much attention as he will for his actions. The latter presents potential major policy conflicts, i.e. the whoel world will pay attmnetion to his opinions, they'll be big news, and he's proven he can't keep his motuh shut--to the point that he might have costs his wife the nomiantion and Presidency.

Knee-jerk Hillary supporters have to come to terms with the fact that anything Hillary does is absolutely unprecedented because of her spouse, Bill her enormous ball & chain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 AM on 11/21/2008
- partyofone I'm a Fan of partyofone 45 fans permalink

imusintheevening, you are joking? "President Clinton has demonstrated his integrity to the American people?"

Bill Clinton wagged his finger in the face of the American people and lied. He lied under oath. He race baited in South Carolina, and then SWORE he never said it, forgetting about 21st century technology that can provie lies. He lies, distorts, misleads, denies, parses, and spins.

Suggesting for one minute that Bill Clinton is honest and trustworthy denies a mountain of facts to the contrary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:10 AM on 11/21/2008

Oh, please lied under oath about something that wasn't a crime nor was it anyone's business to begin with. There isn't a man alive who wouldn't have done the exact same thing. The American people didn't care then and here is a news flash , they don't care now.

Pres. Clinton is just like any other politician, a politician. Welcome to reality.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:28 AM on 11/21/2008
- StillAmused I'm a Fan of StillAmused 260 fans permalink

Let's see. Think I'll take South Carolina..­. so much empty dross to choose from.

The press endlessly ran Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" comment in South Carolina (about 20 seconds), discarding the preceding 10 minutes or more of Clinton being pressed by reporters about -- EUREKA! -- the historical role of RACE in S.C. politics!

This was confirmed by Rep. Kendrick Meek [D, FL], an African-American who witnessed the whole exchange..­. and SAID SO on CNN! It was in that context that Clinton referred -- in COMPLIMENTARY terms -- to both Jackson's and Obama's campaigns.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/28/intv.clinton.out.of.context.cnn

It was decided FOR everyone that Clinton was "injecting race"... by the sloppy, amateur-hour PRESS (whose OWN commentary is wearily laden with endless calculations of the role of race in voting).

... and you were paying close attention and taking notes so you could be this smart.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:08 AM on 11/21/2008
- billysviez I'm a Fan of billysviez 4 fans permalink

Sir, the Criminals in the Whitehouse have stolen Trillions from WE THE PEOPLE. where is your outrage at them?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:24 AM on 11/21/2008
- hopefullee I'm a Fan of hopefullee 2 fans permalink
photo

If there are legitimate conflicts of interest that have to be dealt with, fine. But I found that this article had a strong undercurrent of disapproval, as being rich is, in itself, somehow wrong. As long as whatever Bill is doing is legal and he pays taxes on his income, who are we to judge?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 AM on 11/21/2008
- DrDemon I'm a Fan of DrDemon 7 fans permalink
photo

Y
A
W
N

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 AM on 11/21/2008

Geez, Edsall, will you ever put this Clinton obsession to bed?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 AM on 11/21/2008
photo

YAY! No to HRC for SoS!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 AM on 11/21/2008
- StillAmused I'm a Fan of StillAmused 260 fans permalink

"The elder Bush, who was wealthy before he became president, had an active speaking schedule after he left the White House, and as recently as 2004 he was reported to have been paid between $125,000 and $150,000 for a series of speeches in China. He has also held seats on corporate boards. But much of his activity remains private because he is under no obligation to disclose it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022202189.html

Hmmm... 2004.

Who was President back then, again?

The hypocrisy and faux outrage is positively stifling.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:29 AM on 11/21/2008
- jackstpaul I'm a Fan of jackstpaul 9 fans permalink

There's a big difference between the financial erlationship between a parent and child and that between a husband and wife--who co-mingle thier assests. W. didn't financially benefit from his father's speaking engagments, Hillary has benefitted from Bill's.

Knee-jerk Hillary supporters don't appear to even think about these matters.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 AM on 11/21/2008
- StillAmused I'm a Fan of StillAmused 260 fans permalink

You're right. How could I forget... Junior's a self-made man, a f**king success story in his own right, didn't benefit from Pappy's connections and signed a prenup in 2000 waiving, in perpetuity, all interest in the growing family fortune.

Quite a spectacle, watching all the former foaming-at­-the-mouth 'Obamabots', already prepared to throw him under the bus because he doesn't share your all-consuming pathology.­.. and it's only November!

Why should I trust HIS proven judgement and demonstrated intellect when there are scholars like you -- really informed insiders -- dispensing wisdom here for free?

Knee-jerk malcontents don't appear to think about these matters.

Co-mingle THIS.

(points South)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:52 AM on 11/21/2008
- partyofone I'm a Fan of partyofone 45 fans permalink

Sorry. Was Barbara Bush SoS? Did I miss that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:12 AM on 11/21/2008
- StillAmused I'm a Fan of StillAmused 260 fans permalink

You obviously missed the advanced class in Conflict Of Interest.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 AM on 11/21/2008
photo

How can she possibly be vetted?

I am very dissappointed in this appointment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 AM on 11/21/2008
photo

Me too!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:33 AM on 11/21/2008
- partyofone I'm a Fan of partyofone 45 fans permalink

She can be vetted successfully by the two former Clinton aides heading the transition and conduting the vetting.

Obama seems to have joined the Clintons on the low road of politics, where vetting standards are very low. The new vetting questionaire:

1. Do you anticipate being convicted of any high crimes while Obama is in office (convictions that have long appealete processes should not be included).

2. Are you currently indicated on felony charges?

3.. Have you served time in federal prison in recent months?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:18 AM on 11/21/2008
- OneTop I'm a Fan of OneTop 93 fans permalink
photo

Money is always getting in the way ... sheesh !

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 AM on 11/21/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect