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

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

Peace

her receiving a $65,000 speaking fee?

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

needed for a celebrity's appearance fee.

actual accomplishments.

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.

•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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

reported for years aad nauseam, especially here

That's when the clock starts ticking.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

Creative movement of the goalposts.

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.

The Clintons, not so much.

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........

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

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.

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.

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...

And next President!

Thanks for promoting our Choice!

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.

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.

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

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.

Are they buddies? Hard to imagine.

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

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.

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.

Supply and demand.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Ugh. Vote Bernie!!

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.

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?

Right?

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.

That's all, folks!

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.

I forget...

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

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

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 .

You know,....The Clinton Foundation.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211366-clinton-speaking-fees-have-been-donated

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.

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.

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

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.

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