Sunday, May 1, 2016

Madame Hillary Speaks

               




for fb.jpg  By Florida Bill

                                             Hillary Clinton is really kind of an enigma, and I am curious as to how she made so much money as a speaker.  She had been a First Lady in Washington and in Arkansas and for six years was a United States Senator from New York.  From 2008 to 2012 she was President Obama's Secretary of State. 
                              Impressive credentials.  But, even with all of that glitter, she is just not a very likeable person, according to countless books and articles written about her and her family.  Reportedly, she is demanding, harsh  and condescending to persons assigned and hired to do her bidding.   During private anger snits, she uses language peppered with the "F" word, and on one occasion, as an angry young law student, she accosted a Democratic lawyer at a senate hearing and said  "you "Mother f----r" you sold out," because he displeased her.  Polls consistently report that she is considered to be untrustworthy and a liar in the judgment of 60 per cent of Americans, both men and women. 
                               With all that baggage, and so many recorded incidents of her prevarications and of her deceitful comments on the Benghazi siege in which four Americans,  including an ambassador, were killed,  she continues on a determined path to become the 45th President, and the country's first woman to hold the office.  At present, it appears that she is certain to secure the Democratic nomination for the election next November 8. 
                               But for 27 months following her four years of service as Secretary of State, she was a traveling orator, and delivered a total of 92 speeches.  Incredibly, she was paid $21.6 million, and, amazingly, a talk lasted a mere 20 minutes.  What was her appeal and how come she was commanding speaking fees averaging $225,000, sometimes a good deal more?  Asked by CNN why she charges so much, Clinton replied, "It's what they offered." 
                               By and large, honorariums were paid to Clinton from for-profit banks and companies.  Speaker Clinton charged her highest fee of $400,000 to the charitable Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago and her regular $225,000 fee to the American Jewish University.  To some, Clinton (and her husband) were gouging the charities. "There are only a handful of charitable organizations to whom Mrs.Clinton spoke, wrote Lori Marcus, a correspondent for Jewish Press.  The sad truth, she said,  is that the hundreds of thousands which had been donated to the charities to support Jewish causes went "right into the pockets of the Clintons."   
                               Recently, a woman remarked to me: "Who, for heavens sake, would pay a quarter of a million dollars to hear Hillary Clinton, who, if truth be known, no one can stand?"   I thought, that is true.  Mrs. Clinton has no reputation as a spell-binding orator whose words can grip an audience with emotion and elicit wild applause.  But somehow, she became a multi millionaire in just a few days.  What about this magical golden throat?                                                Mrs. Clinton's husband was America's 42d President, and Mrs. Clinton left her office as a New York senator in 2008 to run for President against Barack Obama.  Many favored her to win, but in the closing months, Obama proved too popular and she then conceded, and subsequently joined his cabinet.  It was always speculated that she would run again for the office, and she laid her ground work for the campaign by delivering speeches.  
                               She spoke before a variety of organizations including the big banks on Wall street and before rich brokerage houses.  In three speeches before Goldman Sachs, she was paid nearly $700,000 and it has always been presumed that Wall Street bigwigs were currying her favor and that they could expect a helping hand when she was in the oval office.
                               It was amid the speculation that she would be a candidate for President, and with a good chance of winning, that speaker invitations came fast and furious. Very likely, there were more than she could handle, but there was caution and strict protocol to be observed if Mrs. Clinton agreed to speak. In fact, the contract designed by Clinton appeared to give her the status of royalty, of a woman who wore a crown and to whom subjects should bow, and of course they did and the greenbacks rolled in.
                                Ninety two speeches in about 75 days is a busy schedule.  Her usual fee was $225,000 per, but there were exceptions, according to detailed research conducted by Dr. Robert W. Gehl a professor of communications in Utah,who examined her speaking days and the royal protocol which she insisted on.
                                Her reguar fee was $225,000, but often she charged $300,000 and more.  But she had real energy when it came to fees.  On April 11 of 2014, for example, she was hosted by the California Medical association (via satellite) and paid an honorarium of $100,000.  It was on the short side, but no worry there. On the day before, April 10, she spoke twice-- earning $225,000 from the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries in Las Vegas, and $265,000 from "Lets Talk Entertainment" in San Jose. 
                        The contractual agreement for a speech, with half of the fee in front, provided that Mrs. Clinton would be provided round trip travel in a private jet with hotel accommodations, food and all incidentals.  The accommodations called for a "presidential suite" and up to three adjoining or contiguous single rooms for travel aides and an additional two rooms for advance staff.               
                         The full session with the elite Mrs. Clinton would consume a total of 90 minutes, and the press would not be permitted to attend. The actual golden speech itself would consume only 20 minutes.  The first 30 minutes were a "meet and greet" session with picture taking, followed by the quick speech. The remaining 40 minutes would be devoted to a Q and A session, but there would be no free wheeling and embarrassing questions as all inquiries would be communicated to the secretary by a moderator or introducer who had been pre-screened and approved by Madame.   
                          There was a single stenographer to be assigned  and paid a flat $1,250 by the host.  A transcript was to be made for the speaker, but was not to be shared.  
                           Many of her talks were made to Wall Street banks and New York millionaires, but despite current requests in debates and on today's campaign trail, Clinton has declined to make the texts of the talks available for perusal.  Her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and others have soundly criticized Mrs. Clinton for her steadfast refusal to reveal the contents of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street enterprises, suggesting  she is too friendly with the millionaires and may have promised them special future nods.  Sanders has charged that Wall Street bigwigs view her as an investment in their continued power in America. 
                          Perhaps the only other speaker who has captured such memorable speaking fees has been her husband, former President William Clinton.  Since leaving office in 2001, the ex-President has delivered several hundred speeches throughout the world and has garnered fees totaling well over 130 million dollars. Together, this husband and wife team with their golden throats have become remarkably rich, and memories of them being "dead broke after Bill left the White House" have faded with the rainbow. 
                          And let's not leave out the fact that their skill at making lucrative speaking engagements seems to have been inherited by their only daughter, Chelsea Clinton, 36. She now occasionally hits the podium as well and reportedly receives honoraria as high as $75,000, for a 10 minute speech (and Clinton perks.)  As they say, the apple does not fall far from the tree.
                      Who knew there could be such profit in the aftermath of a holding a political office?  No doubt some of those Wall Street bigwigs who pay those fees look forward to a good return on their investments. 

                                      xxx



  

2 comments:

  1. I'd pay a quarter of a million for her not to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Donald Trump has freely admitted that he expected favors from politicians hr supported with campaign contributions over the years. And Bernie Sanders is certainly correct in observing that Wall Street barons who pay Hillary ridiculously fat fees for her speeches are hedging their bets and expecting favoritism after she's elected.

    "Pay to play" has historically been, unfortunately, the political bedrock of every government system ranging from tribal to monarchical to capitalist (by donating money or assets) and including socialist and communist (by involuntarily donating assets as well as political and economic freedoms). Here in the US, where campaign-finance laws allegedly limit contributions from individuals and corporations, and PACS allegedly shield candidates from donors, everybody knows who's donating what to whom,,mnd the system seems seems to be fairly transparent. As you pointed out, Hillary and hubby Bill have fine-tuned "pay to play:" into an art form as compensation for services.

    I'm reminded of a story I read in a Chicago newspaper many years age about a local,politician, a lawyer of course, who admitted to a reporter that he never took cash for a bribe, because cash was hard to explain and easy to trace. Instead, he simply preferred a check with notation "for legal services fendered."

    Here in the insolvent state of Illinois where the state, the city of Chicago and many municipalities are collapsing under many multi-billions of debt, with bankrupt agencies, unfinanced public pensions and junk-bond financing of debt while property taxes, sales taxes and murder rates set nationwide records, school systems and small businesses struggle to stay afloat, corporations depart for foreign climes, revenues and the middle class decline, and the only private-sector jobs available are in cyberspace (Uber and TrackRabbit), we have sen the results of governing by Democratic supermajority, whose basic platform has been "tax, borrow, spend and waste."

    We all know that the supermajority maintains its power through "pay to play:" lLgislators give the public-employee onions what they want in jobs, pay, pensions and perks, the unions in turn give the legislators their votes and finance their re-election campaigns, guaranteeing their incumbencies. It's the old vicious circle of mutual backscratching to which Illinois voters are accustomed and apathetic, proving the axiom that "the government you get is the one you deserve."

    But many voters are wising-up. No reforms in Illinois can be accomplished without amending the state constitution. The Illinois ballot in November will ask voters if they favor adding an amendment to abolish gerrymandering to the NEXT election ballot. Slow, to be sure, but maybe some light at the end of the tunnel.



    ReplyDelete