When officials at the University of California at Los Angeles began negotiating a $300,000 speech appearance by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the school had one request: Could we get a reduced rate for public universities? The answer from Clinton’s representatives: $300,000 is the “special university rate.”… That e-mail exchange and other internal communications, obtained this week by The Washington Post under a Freedom of Information Act request, provide a rare glimpse into the complex and meticulous backstage efforts to manage the likely 2016 presidential candidate’s lucrative speaking career.
There’s been a lot of time, energy, brain cells, and debate devoted to Sec. Hillary Clinton’s public speaking career- particularly as it pertains to her speeches to Wall Street firms. In my mind, at least, we should be talking about two very separate and distinct issues…because one of these things is definitely NOT like the other.
My first reaction to Sec. Clinton asking for- and getting $300,000 for a speech- ANY speech- is astonishing…but not particularly surprising, given her stellar resume. First Lady, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State- no one else can claim those credentials. Her experience, capability, and credibility are beyond reproach, so for her to ask, and get, $300,000 for a speech is simply a case of the market paying what she’s worth. In that sense, I’d wish her well and grant her the unquestioned right to make as much as she can while she can.
After all, who among us wouldn’t do exactly the same thing in the same situation? Let’s be honest, shall we? If someone offered me $300,000 to give a speech, I’d ask only three things of them:
- When?
- Where?
- How long do you want me to speak?
In the nearly two years since stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton has made dozens of paid appearances across the country at industry conventions and Wall Street banks as well as at universities. Her UCLA fee, like those at other universities, went to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the family’s nonprofit group.
But critics have argued that the carefully staged events and high speaking fees could complicate Clinton’s ability to run a populist campaign built around the economic struggles of the middle class.
If people are questioning Sec. Clinton’s “populist” credentials based on her outsized speaking fees, I’d submit that they’re engaging in some pretty clear and obvious hypocrisy. Trading on and monetizing one’s accomplishments is a time-honored American tradition; the amount of money changing hands is apropos of nothing significant. In Sec. Clinton’s case, the market paid her what it would bear…and her fees went to the Clinton family’s foundation. That alone would seem to mitigate any claims that she was profiting needlessly and inappropriately by trading on her public service. Even if the money had ended up in her bank account and not the family foundation’s, there would seem to be little controversial about her speaking fees.
From where I sit, the only issue is the speaking fees she accepted from Wall Street firms, which absolutely can, and perhaps even should be taken as an indication of a too-cozy relationship with the Lords of the Universe who possess the power and ability to crater America’s economy. If you’re going to claim to be willing to reign in Wall Street’s excesses after accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees, you can’t claim to be surprised when Sen. Bernie Sanders calls “bullshit” on you.
Sec. Clinton’s claim that she didn’t know she’d be running for Presidents rings hollow as the weak protestations of someone caught in what some might (perhaps legitimately) interpret as a conflict of interest. Appearance matters, especially for someone harboring outsized political ambitions. She’s smart and politically savvy enough to understand what taking speaking fees from Wall Street firms might look like down the road. Even if everything was above board…and there’s no reason to believe anything nefarious occurred…the optics are horrible for someone with greater political ambitions.
Over the years, Sec. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, made $153 million in speaking fees between 2001 and the launch of her Presidential campaign last year. Nice work if you can get it, eh?
If we’re to believ Sec. Clinton’s claim that she won’t be afraid to rein in Wall Street should the need arise, it would easier to lend her credibility without knowledge of the money she’s accepted from firms like Goldman Sachs. When it comes to Presidential politics, perception may not be everything…but it’s certainly no small thing, either. We need to be able to trust that our next President won’t feel honor-bound to repay those whose largesse has been of significant benefit. We can say that of Sen. Sanders…I’m not at all certain the same can be said for Sec. Clinton.
Therein lies the problem.
