HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » A college balks at Hillar...

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:07 AM

 

A college balks at Hillary Clinton’s fee, so books Chelsea for $65,000 instead

Source: WP

When the University of Missouri at Kansas City was looking for a celebrity speaker to headline its gala luncheon marking the opening of a women’s hall of fame, one of the names that came to mind was Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But when the former secretary of state’s representatives quoted a fee of $275,000, officials at the public university balked. “Yikes!” one e-mailed another.

So the school booked the next best option: her daughter, Chelsea.

The university paid $65,000 for Chelsea Clinton’s brief appearance Feb. 24, 2014, a demonstration of the celebrity appeal and marketability that the former and possibly second-time first daughter employs on behalf of her mother’s presidential campaign and family’s global charitable empire.

More than 500 pages of e-mails, contracts and other internal documents obtained by The Washington Post from the university under Missouri public record laws detail the school’s long courtship of the Clintons.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-college-balks-at-hillary-clintons-fee-so-books-chelsea-for-65000-instead/2015/06/29/b1918e42-1e78-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html

79 replies, 5636 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply A college balks at Hillary Clinton’s fee, so books Chelsea for $65,000 instead (Original post)
Beauregard Jun 2015 OP
hibbing Jun 2015 #1
Chakab Jun 2015 #2
KamaAina Jun 2015 #4
PoliticAverse Jun 2015 #6
Chakab Jun 2015 #46
LanternWaste Jun 2015 #42
Chakab Jun 2015 #48
Elmer S. E. Dump Jun 2015 #49
Beacool Jun 2015 #57
Elmer S. E. Dump Jun 2015 #70
Beacool Jun 2015 #75
McKim Jun 2015 #77
alp227 Jul 2015 #78
Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #79
Hoppy Jun 2015 #51
840high Jun 2015 #68
JDPriestly Jun 2015 #3
antigop Jun 2015 #7
still_one Jun 2015 #19
antigop Jun 2015 #35
still_one Jun 2015 #39
antigop Jun 2015 #53
candelista Jun 2015 #56
still_one Jun 2015 #61
cosmicone Jun 2015 #9
HassleCat Jun 2015 #15
cosmicone Jun 2015 #30
HassleCat Jun 2015 #32
LanternWaste Jun 2015 #41
cosmicone Jun 2015 #44
Elmer S. E. Dump Jun 2015 #72
Beauregard Jun 2015 #13
Beacool Jun 2015 #18
ibewlu606 Jun 2015 #60
Igel Jun 2015 #65
Beacool Jun 2015 #66
PoliticAverse Jun 2015 #5
SoapBox Jun 2015 #8
Thespian2 Jun 2015 #10
onehandle Jun 2015 #11
HassleCat Jun 2015 #12
misterhighwasted Jun 2015 #14
HassleCat Jun 2015 #17
misterhighwasted Jun 2015 #25
HassleCat Jun 2015 #34
misterhighwasted Jun 2015 #40
HassleCat Jun 2015 #63
Beacool Jun 2015 #16
Beauregard Jun 2015 #20
Beacool Jun 2015 #26
Beauregard Jun 2015 #27
Beacool Jun 2015 #29
candelista Jun 2015 #50
TheCount_ Jun 2015 #59
cosmicone Jun 2015 #33
GeorgeGist Jun 2015 #43
alc Jun 2015 #58
hughee99 Jun 2015 #21
AzDar Jun 2015 #45
candelista Jun 2015 #52
Sancho Jun 2015 #22
Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2015 #23
Beauregard Jun 2015 #28
Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2015 #31
Beauregard Jun 2015 #24
davidthegnome Jun 2015 #36
Psephos Jun 2015 #69
Joe Magarac Jun 2015 #37
B2G Jun 2015 #38
candelista Jun 2015 #54
CTBlueboy Jun 2015 #47
olddots Jun 2015 #55
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2015 #62
Sunlei Jun 2015 #64
Igel Jun 2015 #67
yurbud Jun 2015 #71
asjr Jun 2015 #73
rocktivity Jun 2015 #74
Owl Jun 2015 #76

Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:13 AM

1. 65,000?

I would barf if I was in college and they decided to pay that much for her to speak....ugh.

Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:14 AM

2. What has Chelsea Clinton accomplished in her life that didn't involve her parents that would justify

 

her receiving a $65,000 speaking fee?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:16 AM

4. Precisely.

 

If her surname were not Clinton, but, say, Morning , we'd be looking at a $100 honorarium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:20 AM

6. The justification is that someone was willing to pay it - the only justification

needed for a celebrity's appearance fee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:44 PM

46. Well, at least that you're admitting that his is about "celebrity" rather than

 

actual accomplishments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:19 PM

42. What then, is the precise and relevant amount of money she should earn per annum

What then, is the precise and relevant amount of money she should earn per annum, on on what objective measure is that number based?

No doubt, you'll supply everything but the relevant response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #42)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:46 PM

48. If I'd written anything to that effect, your post might actually be a clever retort.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:46 PM

49. Really? She quite a remarkable (and very smart) woman.

 

•Chelsea is so intelligent that she skipped the third grade.

•She was a National Merit Scholarship semifinalist at the age of 17.

•During her teenage years she was active in Model United Nations — an extracurricular activity in which students typically role play as delegates to the United Nations.

•She graduated from Stanford University with a B.A. in History.

•She earned her master’s degree in International Relations from Oxford University (in England).

•In 2003, she joined McKinsey & Company as a consultant, becoming the youngest person in her class to be hired.

•Clinton completed a Master of Public Health degree at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in 2010 and began teaching there in 2012.

•She’s serves as vice-chairperson for the Clinton Foundation and serves on the board of the School of American Ballet and IAC.

•In 2010, she began serving as Assistant Vice-Provost for the Global Network University of New York University, working on international recruitment strategies.

•She is the co-founder of the Of Many Institute for Multi-faith Leadership at NYU and serves as its co-chair.

Read more: http://bluenationreview.com/chelsea-clintons-accomplishments-may-surprise/#ixzz3eZJrNRbT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:22 PM

57. At times, most of the times to be honest, coming to DU feels like being on a RW site.

At least when it comes to the Clintons. Here, just like at the Freepers and other RW sites, they can never win. They are bashed no matter what they say or do.

Therefore, I take anything posted here against them with a grain of salt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #57)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 02:12 PM

70. Well, I'm a Bernie supporter, but when I see someone bash ANYONE with "what have they acomplished?"

 

without even bothering to do a simple google, I get a bit irritated. And as I've always said, if HRC is the nominee, I'm right there. But Chelsea is not in politics and I don't know why anyone (besides Rush fat-ass Limburger) would want to bash such a nice person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 04:26 PM

75. I like Chelsea.

She's down to Earth and a genuinely nice person. If someone wants to pay to hear her speak, what's the big deal? Besides, she gives her fees to the foundation. The senseless bashing is depressing, particularly considering that this is a Democratic site.

Thanks, if Bernie is the nominee of course I will vote for him. I don't get those who insist that if Hillary is the nominee they will not vote for her. Didn't last week teach them anything? Imagine if a Republican is president after Obama, who would they nominate to SCOTUS? Elections DO matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 04:44 PM

77. She got these Opportunities by a Lucky Accident of Birth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #49)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 03:21 PM

78. My gut feeling is that she got these jobs not out of merit but for her name.

How else do the well-connected get the best jobs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #78)

Wed Jul 1, 2015, 03:25 PM

79. I don't know - do you have a BA from Stanford, 2 masters, one from Oxford and Columbia?

 

Seems like a hell of a lot of merit to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:48 PM

51. It's called, "lucky sperm."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chakab (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:41 PM

68. Nothing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:15 AM

3. How much does the Queen of England ask?

I'm sure Hillary's ask would look small compared to that?

On the other hand, compared to Bernie's fees?

Is this for real? Or is it a joke?

This is really awkward.

Sorry, Hillary folks, but --- how do you explain that a presidential candidate asks $275,000 to speak at a university?

Please do it. Please explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:21 AM

7. it was from Feb, 2014. (Not excusing it....but she wasn't a presidential candidate at the time).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:39 AM

19. If it is from 2014 then this isn't Latest Breaking News

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:03 PM

35. what if this the first that it's being reported? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #35)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:12 PM

39. News from a year ago isn't "latest breaking news'. As far as Hillary's speaking fees, that has been

reported for years aad nauseam, especially here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #39)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:48 PM

53. it's "news" if people didn't know because it hadn't been reported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #53)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:05 PM

56. +1.

 

That's when the clock starts ticking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #53)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:28 PM

61. whatever

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:24 AM

9. Presidential candidates have a right to earn a living at the same rate as before

 

Are Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie taking a pay cut?

Is Bernie Sanders getting the same pay as before?

Is Donald Trump making the same amount as before?

Is Ben Carson going to charge any less for his neurosurgeries?

The problem is that the Sanders' supporters can't even realize how unfair they are whilst trumpeting a socialist agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:31 AM

15. The others are doing it!

 

This is known as the "tu quoque" fallacy. I don't know if the other charge outrageous speaking fees. Public servants should limit themselves to charging a few thousand dollars, plus expenses. And they should only speak at worthy events, locations and organizations that have been vetted to make sure they're not secret Nazi pedophiles or something like that. Criticism of the requested $275k is entirely deserved. It indicates greed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HassleCat (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:57 AM

30. The money is donated to the foundation which is charitable

 

It is not like Hillary is pocketing it and buying diamonds and furs.

Sheeeesh .. the Clinton haters seem to have no limits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:01 PM

32. Oh, it's OK then

 

I know the money is going to the foundation. How does a "charity" charge a university, a public institution of higher learning, that much money. OK, the Clintons re not greedy. The foundation is greedy. Better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HassleCat (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:17 PM

41. Creative movement of the goalposts.

Creative movement of the goalposts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HassleCat (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:34 PM

44. The colleges charge tuition don't they?

 

Each non-profit has to bring in revenue -- neither is holier.

By paying Clinton $275K, they can get 10 times that from their donors and alumni in theory. In this case, they couldn't project that so they invited Chelsea instead.

No big deal -- except for those who eat their liver over everything Clintons do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HassleCat (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 02:14 PM

72. If they agree to the price, it's not Hillary's doing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:26 AM

13. At least the costly British Royal family are good for tourism.

 

The Clintons, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:36 AM

18. The difference is that Hillary can get paid that fee, Bernie can't.

It's supply and demand. Both Clintons give many free speeches, but that seems to be omitted as it doesn't suit the need here to always be outraged by anything to do with the Clintons. Heck, people are even paying to hear George Bush speak. Go figure........



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:27 PM

60. NT

 

The difference is, Sanders wouldn't prostitute himself like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibewlu606 (Reply #60)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:38 PM

65. Is that veiled sexism?

To be honest, most dog whistles (23 to 54 kHz) are above most human perceptual ranges (20 Hz - 20 kHz), but I'm older and male so my sensitivity to the upper ranges is diminished a bit.

In other words, my ability to hear dog whistles ... not really there whether I like it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibewlu606 (Reply #60)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:38 PM

66. Oh, the holier than thou crowd...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:18 AM

5. If you have to pay someone to show up at your grand opening it isn't that grand. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:21 AM

8. Shame, shame, shame...

On what has become in the world today...that people are SO greedy that they won't even talk unless they are paid thousands.

I guess she has to make a living too but what a disappointment about Chelsea...Mom and Pop, now that we know this has been going on with them, not a surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:24 AM

10. The speaking engagement was in 2014

so I assume that H was simply doing her usual grifting, knowing that she was going to be awarded the Democratic presidential nomination...

Personally, if I were a university student and knew money was being wasted on Chelsea, I would have been extremely pissed-off...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:24 AM

11. Our Nominee!

And next President!

Thanks for promoting our Choice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:26 AM

12. Greed

 

For a public servant to charge six figures to speak, briefly of course, at something like this is a travesty. This applies to both Clintons, mom and daughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:27 AM

14. Well clearly this was a great & welcome decision.

Chelsea Clinton's accomplishments with their Foundation & her global attention to humanitarian needs as well as how policy within foreign nations can be addressed to bring about change is an outstanding credit to this bright young humanitarian diplomat.
Chelsea Clinton has credentials that surpass many of the elected seat warmers in DC.

Kudos to her for using her First Daughter position to better the lives of others around the world.

She has a huge following in her own right.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:33 AM

17. More kudos

 

And kudos to her for charging what the market will bear. She is an excellent capitalist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HassleCat (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:50 AM

25. Dripping with such vitriol. Its clear.

I applaud the humanitarian work she does.
Her fees fund the work of the Foundation which benefits many who never had Chelsea's birth status.

If what their humanitarian foundation does to lift up those with no resources causes some on the opposite political spectrum to twitch a bit, well that's not Chelsea's problem.
She learned early on, from Rush Limbaugh, to ignore the misplaced mocking and walk her own walk through life.
Thanks anyway.

I would love to hear her speak.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:02 PM

34. She learned from Rush Limbaugh?

 

Are they buddies? Hard to imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HassleCat (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:17 PM

40. Read it again. She learned from The mocking hateful diatribe of

Rush Limbaugh..non stop on air hate speak towards the Clintons AND of course young Chelsea.
I believe she was about 9 yrs old when Rush publicly attacked this young girl.
I see Rush Limbaugh's RW hate speak based on nothing but RW talking points via his RW Radio Show during the Clinton Presidency, remains alive & still going strong. Even here.

Perhaps you may enjoy the hate speak of a RW blwhard addict like Rush Limbaugh. Google it.
Yes Chelsea learned early on to ignore the mocking from the most vocal Rush Limbaugh.

She walks her own generous humanitarian path in life & ignores the hate.

Thanks anyway.
bye




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #40)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:32 PM

63. OK, I get it now (eom)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:32 AM

16. I just came from the Daily Mail site.

It's a RW rag and the comments were no worse than those here.

If people charge for their speeches and someone is willing to pay the fee, what is the blessed problem?????

Reagan got $2M in 1989 for a handful of speeches in Japan. There are myriad of politicians who charge for their speeches. If they can get someone to pay them, then good for them.

As for Chelsea, the fee went to the foundation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:44 AM

20. Reagan did it too? That's your defense?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:52 AM

26. No, my point is that politicians of both parties have been doing it for many years.

I have no problem with anyone getting paid to give speeches. Obviously, someone is willing to pay their fees and want to hear what they have to say. Heck, even that mental midget Snooki Polizzi, was paid $32,000 to speak at Rutgers University in 2011. I would rather hear Chelsea speak on any subject than Snooki.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:53 AM

27. "They all do it." That's your defense?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:54 AM

29. No defense needed.

Supply and demand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:47 PM

50. "Supply and demand"?

 

Isn't that what Republicans like? Isn't that their supreme unquestionable principle? Unregulated supply and demand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:24 PM

59. Damn

 

I never even heard of that--uh, person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:01 PM

33. It is a fallacy that some kind of defense is needed here

 

There is nothing to defend. If people are willing to pay that kind of money, she must bring in value .. it is a free economy. No one forces them to invite her and pay the money. They do it willingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:27 PM

43. Perhaps it means our economic priorities are very fucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:23 PM

58. what is the blessed problem?????

Appearance.

There have been occasions where one party pays another party an unreasonably high rate for one service/product in order to get another service/product that would otherwise be illegal. For example, the military buying enough $1000 toilet seats to get a replacement helicopter part for free which Congress has forbidden the military to purchase. The military got criticized for paying so much for toilet seats. And the supplier got criticized for screwing the military. It appeared very bad for both parties. In some sense it was very bad - going around Congress. In another sense it was a reasonable way to keep the helicopter fleet in the air instead of waiting for the helicopters Congress wanted built.

When a politician gets a fee that looks unreasonably high for a speech or book it is reasonable to ask if that's all they were being paid for or if there's another service the buyer is expecting (e.g. political influence). Even if the seller is unaware it can appear bad for both parties. We'd need to know the going rate for a speech like this from someone without governmental connections to know if it's worth questioning they buyer's intentions in this case.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:46 AM

21. Is Chelsea Clinton really the "next best option"?

Are there no women out there who are less accomplished than Hillary but more accomplished than Chelsea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:37 PM

45. But her Mom is going to be our next President... it's her TURN.

 

Ugh. Vote Bernie!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #45)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:48 PM

52. It's in the Bible.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:46 AM

22. It's a typical fee, but it raised money for the Clinton Foundation

https://www.clintonfoundation.org

You can look and see the work they do...Chelsea was raising money to help people. Yes, with the crazy GOP operatives out to get you and some real dangerous people out there - these type of pubic presentations are controlled and scripted.

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/11/price-political-speakers

Former President George W. Bush is slated to speak at the University of Southern California Nov. 18, 2013. Like many famous public officials, Bush will be paid handsomely for his speech, hosted by USC's College Republicans. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Bush earns between $100,000 and $150,000 per speaking engagement, the annual tuition of two to four USC students.

Bill Clinton: $195,000

Since leaving office in 2001, President Clinton's speaking engagements have earned him more than $100 million for 544 paid speeches, according to CNN. 2012 was reportedly the most profitable year for the former president, with an annual speaking income of $17 million. Clinton gave a highly lauded speech at the Democratic National Convention that August, and in February 2012 he earned $700,000 for one speech given to a newspaper publishing company in Nigeria.

"I never had any money until I got out of the White House,” said Clinton at a forum in Cape Town, South Africa in 2010. “But I've done reasonably well since then."

Due to his wife's position as a federal official, Clinton's speaking fees were made public, but as both are now considered private citizens once again (barring a position in the federal government or run for federal office by either) such records have become private once more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:48 AM

23. Try booking a high-profile band.

 

Bon Jovi or Bruce Springsteen will cost you around $1 million.
Maroon 5 or the Black Eyed Peas? $400,000

$275,000 for a high profile politician, who at the time is a private citizen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #23)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:54 AM

28. Bon Jovi & Springsteen have musical talent.

 

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:58 AM

31. I guess it's always debatable.

 

Regardless, you're paying the going price for someone to do their thing. In the case of Bon Jovi and Springsteen (also, Taylor Swift is in the $1mil group), it's playing music. In the case of Hillary Clinton, it's giving speeches. As a former lawyer, Senator, and SoS, she has PLENTY of experience giving speeches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 11:49 AM

24. She speaks for 10 minutes, then 20 minutes Q&A, then 1/2 hr. photo op.

 

That's all, folks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:05 PM

36. That's just sick.

Let's see... 275K, to speak at a University, at a time when the Nation's students are buried under hundreds of billions of dollars of student loan debt. I've got one sister who is paying 800 bucks a month, who, between the principal and the interest owes 100 grand. Another who pays nearly 400, roughly 35 dollars of which goes towards the principal. The third owes 60 grand and makes about 12 bucks an hour.

Yet, for a brief appearance, this daughter of wealth and entitlement is paid 65,000 dollars by one of these "institutions of higher learning". I wonder... how many college students could actually afford to eat a decent meal from that money. How many text books could be purchased, how many supplies?

I don't care how rich someone is, or what someone is willing to pay - this is sick.

Of course, I suppose you can't really blame someone for taking it when some idiots are willing to pay them 65 grand for a brief appearance.

After a year in default, I'm finally in a student loan rehabilitation program. Owing right around 12 grand, I'll probably have it paid off in ten years or so. Where a brief appearance by a politician's daughter pays more than five times what I owe...

This kind of money and stupidity just makes me want to be violently ill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:48 PM

69. you have gone straight to the heart of it in this post n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:07 PM

37. It's flat out bribery or influence peddling no matter which Clinton makes the speech. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:10 PM

38. Was this before or after she said she just couldn't get exited about money?

 

I forget...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:56 PM

54. Before.

 

Speech at U Missouri: April 7, 2013

"I tried to care about money but I couldn't": Jun 23, 2014

Did she change her mind?


Interior view of Chelsea's $10,000,000 Manhattan apartment, Mar 14, 2013

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:45 PM

47. wow

 

A measly 275,000 ? what is wrong with University do they not know that "The Duchess of Goldman" gave them a discount Do they want to see her broke

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 12:57 PM

55. remember these colleges pay their sports coaches more than professors

 

ignorance is expensive , paying polititians to speak is big bizz for big infotainment .

Not putting down Hillary for getting the big bucks , just sad that things have gotten this dopey .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:28 PM

62. I'm sure she donates every penny to charity....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:36 PM

64. yes, speakers make big fees. I was surprised even people like romney got paid 6 figures, years ago.

and romney was never co-CEO of one of the largest global charity foundations in the world or child of one, perhaps almost two Presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 01:41 PM

67. I don't see much of a reason to knock Chelsea.

Or to praise her. She's irrelevant.

But the school's wisdom? Sketchy.

Wasn't there some scandal recently where a politician was nailed because he exchanged favorable politicking for perks funneled to his wife? "I didn't get the money so I wasn't influenced" wasn't a credible denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 02:13 PM

71. former presidents should get a comfortable pension and be barred from other income

including after-the-fact bribes collected for presidential libraries and foundations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 03:38 PM

73. There are many Clinton bashers today. I can see

that there are many newbies here. They do not have many ops or replies so I have to believe they are Republicans or just have never paid attention since 8th grade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 04:07 PM

74. Depends whether or not she's an official member of Hillary's election team

Even if she's not, I'm not sure this is appropriate with her mother running. Just pay her a token honorarium plus expenses -- anything more takes on the appearance of a stealth campaign contribution.


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beauregard (Original post)

Tue Jun 30, 2015, 04:30 PM

76. Why is she worth $65K? An outrageous expenditure!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread