Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(114,904 posts)
Sat May 16, 2015, 09:33 AM May 2015

I wish we could talk sanely about the Clintons and their long history [View all]

of dependence on and entanglement with corporate big $$$. We've discussed it as regards repubs but it devolves into a food fight when it comes to the Clintons. So go ahead, excoriate me for this post, yawn, dismiss it, but that doesn't mean that the Clintons aren't part of this.

I'd be happy to stipulate that they haven't done anything illegal- but that doesn't mean that it isn't problematic.

And I wish we could dispense Schwiezer: The discussion of this far, far predates his idiotic book- which I see as a huge stumbling block to discussing it; bring it up and people immediately start screaming that you're on the side of the right wingers.

The intersection between politics and corporate money is a serious problem. And it's not just CU. It was recognized and discussed as a serious problem long before 2008.

The Clintons owe virtually all of their financial success to corporate money. They owe the success of their Foundation to corporate money. If neither one were in politics anymore, that wouldn't be a problem.

Money buys access. Period. The more access, the more influence. Again, not saying that any of this is illegal, but it functions to shut out other voices. You can argue that some of that money is buying access for the good, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that most of it is.

The Clintons earned $25 million since the beginning of 2014 making speeches. This is not money that was donated to the Foundation. It was personal income. Most of it came from speeches to corporate interests.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband made at least $30 million over the last 16 months, mainly from giving paid speeches to corporations, banks and other organizations, according to financial disclosure forms filed with federal elections officials on Friday.

The sum, which makes Mrs. Clinton among the wealthiest of the 2016 presidential candidates, could create challenges for the former secretary of state as she tries to cast herself as a champion of everyday Americans in an era of income inequality.

The $25 million in speaking fees since the beginning of last year continue a lucrative trend for the Clintons: They have now earned more than $125 million on the circuit since leaving the White House in 2001.



198 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Good luck, Cali. marym625 May 2015 #1
YOU MUSST NOT SPEAK ILL of the Clintonesss...We loves them my precious... Katashi_itto May 2015 #28
hee hee marym625 May 2015 #38
:) Katashi_itto May 2015 #39
Brilliant. Jackpine Radical May 2015 #64
Lol! Cool! Katashi_itto May 2015 #88
lol LiberalLovinLug May 2015 #48
Lol! BeanMusical May 2015 #51
The easy to get at Precious is mostly in the Middle East eridani May 2015 #120
They are flawed for sure unlike Bernie redstateblues May 2015 #154
Same As The Bushes billhicks76 May 2015 #145
I have no problem with them making money out of office redstateblues May 2015 #2
Last time we had a Clinton as president we didn't go into Bosnia? GummyBearz May 2015 #7
too bad he didn't go into rwanda certainot May 2015 #60
No shit! L0oniX May 2015 #133
Ouch! 7962 May 2015 #138
+1000 marym625 May 2015 #146
Somalia too. beltanefauve May 2015 #169
No boots on the ground. No thousands of our soldiers dead redstateblues May 2015 #153
Got a picture for you... Scootaloo May 2015 #172
thanks for your reply and its non-defensive tone. cali May 2015 #16
The quid pro quo is what Exilednight May 2015 #37
I agree with you. It's extremely naive to think there is no quid pro quo when rhett o rick May 2015 #101
Even when it's not completely intentional... rbnyc May 2015 #129
I find this to be the same in journalism Exilednight May 2015 #140
great point rbnyc May 2015 #141
Money Interests - Especially in the Hundreds of Thousands in Greenbacks LovingA2andMI May 2015 #166
There was no quid pro quo awoke_in_2003 May 2015 #180
If you are being sarcastic please give me a sign I am sarcasm deficient. rhett o rick May 2015 #185
Sorry, when I read it awoke_in_2003 May 2015 #186
No it's me. I usually have a chip on my shoulder just waiting to unload. nm rhett o rick May 2015 #188
Read 1939 May 2015 #23
I don't have a problem with them making money if they get a job and work for it. rhett o rick May 2015 #102
+1 who cares how much money they make? treestar May 2015 #106
Then let's stop criticizing Republicans who do the same thing. People want to hear them also, sabrina 1 May 2015 #162
Thank You!!! LovingA2andMI May 2015 #167
But other people are deciding they want to pay the money treestar May 2015 #174
And Hillary pulled herself out of poverty!!!! nt Logical May 2015 #122
Because that $25,000,000 was all because they are so entertaining, not that everyone knew Dustlawyer May 2015 #124
Perhaps the focus should on the efforts the Clintons do rather than the money issue. Thinkingabout May 2015 #3
that's right. And when we look at some of what BC did while in office, we cali May 2015 #18
If you want to say this, it was also a time when Bernie was in Congress, what did Thinkingabout May 2015 #24
You do realize Bernie Sanders voted against repealing Glass-Steagal right? think May 2015 #27
He was still a part of Congress which repealed the Glass-Steagal, he should be looked Thinkingabout May 2015 #34
So he's responsible for the Democrats that sold out and voted for it? That's really twisted logic. think May 2015 #45
Did he try to influnce others? Did he talk to other Congressional members? Thinkingabout May 2015 #47
He VOTED against it. And what did Bill Clinton do? Oh ya, He made it law..... think May 2015 #56
May I ask, how far back does your "know your current events" date back to? 2banon May 2015 #104
From the Congressional Record OnlinePoker May 2015 #114
owned. Qutzupalotl May 2015 #151
"Did he try to influence others?" Why are you asking that. If you are trying to make rhett o rick May 2015 #187
Speaking of IWR vote neverforget May 2015 #99
Did you forget the conditions of the IWR? Thinkingabout May 2015 #109
I know Senator Clinton is not responsible for her vote. She's blameless. I get it. neverforget May 2015 #116
But just a few posts above that poster said Sanders was responsible for ALL of congress' cui bono May 2015 #160
Yes it certainly is possible neverforget May 2015 #164
Did I say she was blameless for her vote? Even Hillary has said she would like to Thinkingabout May 2015 #173
That vote had a consequence which you seem unable to acknowledge. It gave President Bush legal neverforget May 2015 #175
Okay, wait... so Sanders is responsible for all members of Congress' vote even though he voted cui bono May 2015 #158
He did actually, when he votes against a bill his habit is to use his floor time to speak forcefully Dragonfli May 2015 #117
Have you ever known him to just sit quietly and not speak? 7962 May 2015 #139
Wow. So now one member of congress is responsible for the votes of all other members cui bono May 2015 #157
Senator Sanders.... LovingA2andMI May 2015 #168
You need to do some research. He voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall cali May 2015 #40
I did not say Bernie did not vote for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, he was a part of Congress Thinkingabout May 2015 #43
you are not thinkingabout this too clearly are you? LiberalLovinLug May 2015 #52
Oh, wow, they can never compromise, guess this is why we have a do nothing congress, Thinkingabout May 2015 #53
disingenuous blather. cali May 2015 #66
Woooooooooooooooosh LiberalLovinLug May 2015 #67
and there's the stupid food fight- which I stupidly got sucked right into cali May 2015 #71
you are so full of.... nonsense that it's pointless trying to have a discussion with you cali May 2015 #65
Perhaps bringing up subjects such as Glass-Stegall may be overwhelming for some. Thinkingabout May 2015 #82
You don't even make any sense. defensive garbage cali May 2015 #84
There will never be a sane conversation, won't happen. Some has Thinkingabout May 2015 #115
I think there was a great effort... rbnyc May 2015 #131
Jaw dropping Comment. Absolutely Devoid of Logic alone, forget pretense of intellectual honesty. 2banon May 2015 #105
Welfare "reform", the Telecom Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hifiguy May 2015 #89
same old same old, nothing new. Thinkingabout May 2015 #110
Given the immense damage Clinton-backed policies caused, hifiguy May 2015 #112
More of the same, still nothing new. Thinkingabout May 2015 #113
What do you mean? rbnyc May 2015 #135
OK - let's start with NAFTA, Banking deregulation, brutal welfare "reform", offshoring whereisjustice May 2015 #79
So true. And they have to raise money. treestar May 2015 #107
Chump change to a Koch Brother, a Walton, or an Adelson. onehandle May 2015 #4
No the real enemy is within. zeemike May 2015 #15
+1 marym625 May 2015 #42
Blammo. hifiguy May 2015 #90
yes, but that's not the only point. The Clintons are wealthy today because of their close cali May 2015 #21
Somewhat tangentially, this reminds me again to ask Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #5
You're right, but let's face it. Any attempt to discuss the intersection of money and politics cali May 2015 #22
Nah, then they'd have to actually discuss the "attack". jeff47 May 2015 #119
The "Clintons" aren't running BainsBane May 2015 #6
Regarding their income it is a joint effort madville May 2015 #9
How about the Sanders and the O'Malleys? BainsBane May 2015 #11
The topic is their income madville May 2015 #13
Sure, let's discuss it. I don't know much about the O'Malley's finances cali May 2015 #25
sorry, I don't buy that. Far more than most potential nominees- and not just cali May 2015 #29
+1 BeanMusical May 2015 #46
I don't have it any way BainsBane May 2015 #62
THEY made it. cali May 2015 #73
She has already run for President and was a Senator, if her positions are so different then it TheKentuckian May 2015 #178
That is true but I seem to remember that during his term she was called one of his advisors. And jwirr May 2015 #41
Members of political dynasties forfeit to some degree their ability to be viewed as individuals. tritsofme May 2015 #55
A dynasty BainsBane May 2015 #58
You may view it that way. tritsofme May 2015 #63
Worshipping... LovingA2andMI May 2015 #170
She conflates the two herself shaayecanaan May 2015 #165
I still would have voted for John Kennedy given the chance. DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #8
Poor comparison. Kennedy didn't make his money through being in politics. cali May 2015 #30
Precisely...His dad set him and his siblings up with trust funds so they would never have to work... DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #35
We have had many rich Presidents but how they made their money was not always okay with the jwirr May 2015 #44
Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband made at least $30 million over the last 16 months, stonecutter357 May 2015 #10
Exactly MaggieD May 2015 #121
First, change the system. procon May 2015 #12
In other words "don't hate the playa, hate the game." DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #14
I was going to point this out too justiceischeap May 2015 #17
The obvious solution is publically funded national campaigns. procon May 2015 #81
I actually suggested in another post in this OP an justiceischeap May 2015 #91
Most of it came from speeches to corporate interests. Quid pro quo? Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #19
I'm not even suggesting that. But to deny influence is INSANITY cali May 2015 #32
The quid pro quo I'm talking about IS influence. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2015 #36
"I'd be happy to stipulate that they haven't done anything illegal" brooklynite May 2015 #20
thing is bigtree May 2015 #26
I prefer to discuss the policy differences between Secretary of State Clinton, Senator Agnosticsherbet May 2015 #31
Cali, you are spot on. Mbrow May 2015 #33
Kick and R. Good post. BeanMusical May 2015 #49
Here's a list of the 10 richest politicians in US politics justiceischeap May 2015 #50
Small correction... F4lconF16 May 2015 #96
Government is a profitable business... kentuck May 2015 #54
Whether people want to talk about it or not..... daleanime May 2015 #57
I'd like to know what she is saying in the speeches fadedrose May 2015 #59
I agree fadedrose. I've heard it called RiverLover May 2015 #70
Wow fadedrose May 2015 #85
Payola extrodinaires. L0oniX May 2015 #137
It comes down to the question of, do you want to continue this miserable status quo, or not. Enthusiast May 2015 #61
They couldn't wash the political stink off the "foundation" with bleach and a firehose. eom whereisjustice May 2015 #68
I think what that actually means is... wyldwolf May 2015 #69
The polls may not be rigged, but our sources of information are RufusTFirefly May 2015 #87
You're assuming you have some special insight... wyldwolf May 2015 #94
This is a dumb post: Its takes money to become President!! lewebley3 May 2015 #72
bullshit propaganda. Not even tangentially connected to reality. cali May 2015 #75
Paved the way for offshoring our jobs as well with NAFTA & China's PNTR's status. RiverLover May 2015 #78
You are probably a right wing troll, not a Bernie supporter: lewebley3 May 2015 #191
Let's examine that proposition, genius. cali May 2015 #192
Using the word stupid: Detracts from your argument lewebley3 May 2015 #195
calling me a right wing troll discredited every already lame word YOU cali May 2015 #197
Troll, is the right word for someone pretending to be Bernie supporter: It fits! lewebley3 May 2015 #198
There is something wrong with how they earn their money. They take cash from corporations whereisjustice May 2015 #80
No there is not something wrong with earning money: Its what it takes to become President! lewebley3 May 2015 #100
There is something wrong with the WAY they earn money. See the difference? Or are you whereisjustice May 2015 #176
There is no free market: Thats a GOP lie: but Senators are being hired and sold. lewebley3 May 2015 #181
gee, funny that not all Senators are hired are sold. One of mine is the longest cali May 2015 #193
They politicians, they had to get their money from somewhere: They are for Sale too! lewebley3 May 2015 #194
fail. your record of fail is impeccable- if you don't know cali May 2015 #196
I would agree they have to be at least middle class treestar May 2015 #108
To put it into simple-minded terms, Jackpine Radical May 2015 #74
yes, and it's insane to think that the banksters weren't grateful cali May 2015 #76
evaluating US politics is dishonest and incomplete until the left certainot May 2015 #77
Isn't just the money. It's their friends, too. Octafish May 2015 #83
Thank you, Ocatafish, for truthtelling. NYC_SKP May 2015 #161
That picture has always disturbed me too LovingA2andMI May 2015 #171
Hillary Clinton is highly respected and KMOD May 2015 #86
125 million is walking around money for the Koch bros workinclasszero May 2015 #92
Polarization and partisanship are not sane carolinayellowdog May 2015 #93
I'm a HRC supporter and I agree. BKH70041 May 2015 #95
I disagree. F4lconF16 May 2015 #98
Of course, no one person can give $50k. The limit is $2700. salib May 2015 #128
We can talk about it all we want to, nobody is stopping us. Rex May 2015 #97
If the Bushes got rich for destroying the republic... DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #103
NAFTA, banking deregulation, throwing poor people into the street with brutal welfare reform? Both whereisjustice May 2015 #177
Under Bill Clinton DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #182
He signed the laws that nearly destroyed us with corruption and sent a million jobs away and whereisjustice May 2015 #183
Presidents are responsible for their tenures... DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #184
Presidents are responsible for the laws they design to impact the next generation, the data whereisjustice May 2015 #189
I trust HRC will usher in another era of unprecedented peace and prosperity like her husband... DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #190
I do agree heaven05 May 2015 #111
Gee, the last time I talked to Bill Clinton, it cost me....... DFW May 2015 #118
I would say anyone if pretty accessible if you get past their handlers! WTF? nt Logical May 2015 #123
Don't spend a lot of time in DC, do you? WTF? DFW May 2015 #159
That would be great. You start. MineralMan May 2015 #125
wow rbnyc May 2015 #126
I wish you could, too. nt aka-chmeee May 2015 #127
"I wish we could talk sanely about the Clintons" azureblue May 2015 #130
The way I read the OP and this reply: rbnyc May 2015 #132
Hmm, the OP made the prospect of even-handed discussion a nonstarter kjones May 2015 #156
Thank you so much! workinclasszero May 2015 #144
Great post. The idea that Clinton is corrupt because redstateblues May 2015 #155
It started in Arkansas with the Waltons , Tysons and The Stephens boys. LiberalArkie May 2015 #134
Here??? Spitfire of ATJ May 2015 #136
I'm an idiot. joshcryer May 2015 #142
It seems like all you do is talk about it. nt BreakfastClub May 2015 #143
dunno cali. you have pretty much done nothing but talk the horrors of clinton vs sanders the savior seabeyond May 2015 #147
Put in my Twonies worth... Thespian2 May 2015 #148
are morals needed, for a presidential candidate? quadrature May 2015 #149
Thanks for trying dreamnightwind May 2015 #150
Okay. OnyxCollie May 2015 #152
OK, what did they talk about? What did they say? nt jazzimov May 2015 #163
"Money buys access" awoke_in_2003 May 2015 #179
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I wish we could talk sane...