Groups Lobbying On Trade PAID Hillary Clinton $2.5M In SPEAKING FEES

[Segami]

"It's not unusual for former elected officials to go out and give speeches and make a lot of money," said Noble. "What the problem now is that they're coming back into government after going out and having been paid large sums by these various special interests."

Since leaving her post as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton earned millions of dollars delivering 41 paid speeches in the U.S. to a variety of companies and organizations. At least 10 of those groups have been lobbying Congress and federal agencies on trade, an issue that has divided Democrats as the Obama administration pushes for a 12-nation pacific trade deal - and around which Hillary Clinton has remained mum. Clinton has spoken in general terms on trade, saying in New Hampshire last month that any trade deal "has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security." But the issue pits liberal Democrats against the White House and Republicans, and there's a chorus of Democrats are calling for Clinton to weigh in.


In the weeks since she launched her presidential bid, Clinton has been dogged by questions about whether special interests sought to buy influence while she was secretary of state through donations to the Clinton Foundation and through Bill Clinton's paid speeches. For the first time, Hillary Clinton's financial disclosures provide a picture of the speaking engagements for which she was paid since leaving the State Department and at a time when she was actively considering whether to run for president. According to the disclosures released by the campaign on Friday evening, the former secretary of state earned at least $2.7 million from speeches at companies backing the trade promotion authority (TPA) that President Obama has been seeking in order to "fast track" approval of trade deals. While that's a fraction of the $25 million Bill and Hillary Clinton earned from paid speeches from January 2014 to present, they nonetheless open the presidential candidate to criticism.

"She's put herself in the position where people are going to question whether she was influenced by the money she was paid if she supports the trade agreements," said Larry Noble, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. "One of the problems with these situations is even if she reaches her decision for reasons she truly believes in, people are going to question it. It undermines her credibility."

A number of Clinton's appearances before the organizations lobbying on trade were among her most lucrative speeches. Clinton earned $335,000 from Qualcomm for a speech in San Diego on October 14, 2014; $335,000 from the Biotechnology Industry Organization on June 25, 2014; and $325,000 from Cisco Systems for a speech in Las Vegas on August 28, 2014. According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, both tech companies lobbied in support of TPA in 2014 and 2015. They're also members of the Trade Benefits America Coalition, which in November 2014 sent a letter to congressional leaders saying, "As members of the Trade Benefits America Coalition, we write to urge passage of bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation this year....Congressional action on TPA is needed to help ensure high-standard outcomes in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, which the United States and 11 other Asia-Pacific countries are striving to complete." That letter was also signed by General Electric and Xerox, companies that paid Hillary Clinton to give speeches in 2014. Clinton earned $225,000 from GE on January 6, 2014 and $225,000 from Xerox Corporation on March 18, 2014. In total, she earned at least $1.4 million from companies signing that letter. To be sure, these companies have lobbied on a variety of issues. Qualcomm, for example, lobbied on more than 15 policy areas including transportation and taxes in 2015.




Likewise, trade has traditionally been a thorny issue for Democratic presidential candidates who are courting progressives and union support. In 2008, Clinton and then-Sen. Obama sparred over NAFTA, the trade deal with the U.S., Canada and Mexico, struck Bill Clinton signed during his presidency. As secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). In her book, "Hard Choices," she said it would level the playing field for American workers in a global marketplace, and that it would "link markets throughout Asia." Now, the Clinton campaign says she'll be watching negotiations closely. Asked whether they're concerned that Clinton's paid speeches from companies that lobbied for TPA could pose a conflict, campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said Clinton has "laid out the bar that needs to be met, to protect American workers, raise wages, and create more good jobs at home." "So, consistent with what she's been saying on the issue, while this is still being negotiated, she will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and health, promote transparency, and open new opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas," he said. Some Democrats are looking for a more definitive stance. On Sunday Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was asked on CNN's "State of the Union" whether Clinton should take a position on trade and he said: "You can't be on the fence on this one. You're either for it or against." Asked the same question on ABC's This Week, Senator Dianne Feinstein said, "I think it would be very helpful. I think it's been typified by our party in a way which is most unfortunate and that is on the jobs issue."




cont'

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-earned-more-than-25m-speaking-groups-lobbying-trade/

[RiverLover]

1. Jinx! ;-)

I'll delete mine Segami.

[sabrina 1]

109. So the article is lying then? Then post something to counter it. We want FACTs, if you see

lies in this article, just attacking the messenger isn't going to do much to counter those lies.

Post some other source that contradicts what is maintained in the article, otherwise people are just sick to death of this tactic of not addressing the issues, but attacking EVERY MESSENGER unless they are toeing the line.

[RiverLover]

122. I posted the exact same article as this, at the same time, so I deleted it. I'm confused by your

reply to me.

Was that a mistake?

Who are you talking about?

[hrmjustin]

140. You are accusing a member in good standing of being a paid troll. what evidence do you have?

If none then you should apologize!


I don't agree with what the poster posts sometimes but he is still a member in good standing.

[RiverLover]

146. Thanks justin.

You are very kind and quite the class act, given you don't agree with me "sometimes"!!

[hrmjustin]

147. My pleasure!

That was just rude of the poster.

[onehandle]

2. Salesforce's CEO is the one pulling out of Indiana because of their bigoted laws.

Thanks for reminding us that Hillary is associated with him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Salesforce's CEO is the one pulling out of Indiana because of their bigoted laws.

Thanks for reminding us that Hillary is associated with him.


(REDUX)

[RiverLover]

7. Wow! CBS posted this article 7 hours ago & you guys are READY with the HRC camp rebuttal.

Spin baby Spin!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Salesforce's CEO is the one pulling out of Indiana because of their bigoted laws.

Salesforce's CEO is the one pulling out of Indiana because of their bigoted laws.


Thanks for reminding us that Hillary is associated with him.



(REDUX 2)

[marmar]

13. General Electric's weapons have killed millions of innocent people around the globe.....

..... Wanna give thanks for reminding us of Hillary's association with them?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. They also provide me with an affordable flat screen television.

My meager income precludes me from buying a Sony one.

[marmar]

21. I'm sure that's comforting to cluster bomb victims in Afghan villages.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I don't believe they are aware of my flat screen television.

However if you are kind enough to send me the difference in cost between my G E television and the more expensive Sony one I will buy a Sony the next time.

Marxist-Leninists call it praxis; putting theory into action. Us plebeians call it walking the walk.

[sabrina 1]

65. I'm glad, I'm assuming your intentions with these comments, that are not even trying to

defend Hillary's associations as listed in the OP. Because such comments tend to do the opposite.

I read the article, some of it I dismissed as standard procedure these days in politics sadly, and then I saw your comments and went back to read it again, to find out why someone would be trying so hard to distract from the OP.

That is my standard now when I'm not sure how much I should care about all the inevitable 'information' we will be getting about candidates. If I see comments like yours, with no substance, I know I need to take the information seriously.

Thanks for the tip.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. My interlocutor and I agree that General Electric is an evil corporation

My interlocutor and I agree that General Electric is an evil corporation and as responsible citizens not just of the nation but of the world we should do nothing to further fill their coffers.


Since my meager income compelled me to purchase a General Electric television instead of the more expensive brands the next time I am in the market for a television he or she should pay the difference between a General Election television and a more expensive brand.

I would recommend to everybody reading this thread to boycott NBC because by watching a subsidiary of General Electric they are filling their coffers as well.


There is no progress without sacrifice.


P.S. Yeah, all the attacks on Hillary have hardened my heart, made me support her even more, and casually dismiss any criticism of her...These threads are doing as much to change hearts and minds as our carpet bombing of Vietnam did to change the minds of the Vietnamese.

[RiverNoord]

83. Unfortunately, it would appear that GE's propaganda mission is

fully accomplished. They sold their entire stake in NBC to Comcast just a couple of years ago.

[sabrina 1]

86. I already boycott most of the Corporate Media and it isn't a sacrifice at all. It would be a

sacrifice if I had to watch it.

Your personal decisions don't have anything to do with the issue of the OP.

If you consider people disagreeing with a candidate on issues, or with their financial associations, to be 'attacking' them, then I can't help you.

I want to know these things about those who are asking us to elect them to positions where they can influence the direction of this country which at the moment is heading in a very wrong direction.

And if it is turns out that the candidate I have been supporting has issues that I did not know about, I won't have any problem switching my support to someone else, if possible.

Politicians are not our friends, they don't even know we exist. I learned over the past number of years to support THEM only so long as they are supporting US.

I have friends and family. Politicians are there to do the job we elect them to do, nothing more.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. Respectfully

Respectfully the original poster suggested that HRC was receiving speaking fees from corporations and that some of these corporations are evil and that Hillary is tainted by taking their money.

I assure you the original poster is using some of their services of these evil corporations as we speak and filling their coffers.


It reminds me of the parable of the rich young man who asked Jesus what he had to do to follow him and Jesus replied "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

The young man rejected the advice because he refused to sacrifice for his convictions and his material well being was more important than his heavenly treasure.

[zeemike]

89. What a bizarre rationalization.

IMO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. I was merely illustrating the limits of keyboard activism...

I was merely illustrating the limits of keyboard activism and the chasm between theory and action.

[RiverNoord]

62. That's why they owned NBC for decades and

have very effective propaganda commercials that don't bother touting any particular product, but project images of positive culture and being on the front lines of 'progress.'

[misterhighwasted]

18. Equal rights are human rights. Hillary Clinton 2016

She will serve this Nation well. Perhaps with such strength of purpose more will align with her fight for equality under the law.

Very glad for this OP as I am now aware of this association.
Makes me even more proud to support Hillary Clinton.
Her lifelong fight for equality earns her my vote.

She has the power to make life right & fair for those oppressed by religion & RW policy.

[cali]

25. social liberalism and corporate dominance. That really is the ultimate

reflection of what the third way philosophy is all about. It's disturbing that that's the only thing you think is important in this story. What about Corning? Surely you can find something wonderful about them too.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. We can take comfort knowing we're being sold down the river to an inclusive corporatist.

[merrily]

3. What potential conflicts of interest?

[Exilednight]

6. Asked the wolf applying for the job to guard the hen house. n/t

[merrily]

11. I hate it when that happens.

[Thinkingabout]

4. How much has the lobbyists paid Bernie?

The tobacco, oil and energy are interested in trade also. This needs to stop, all congressional members are lobbied, you can't point out one without the other.

[MohRokTah]

8. Bernie is in the pockets of the Unions. Remember, Unions are also corporations.

Funny how nobody mentions that fact.

[Segami]

12. "...Corporations and unions face very different rules and requirements..

"....for their political spending. Labor unions must publicly disclose their political spending and, in some instances, face restrictions about seeking consent from their stakeholders before using political funds. Corporations do not face the same requirements. After Citizens United, there are many avenues through which corporations can spend money in politics without disclosing their financial support for particular candidates or causes. And corporations are not required to seek approval from their stakeholders—in fact, shareholders don’t even have the right under federal law to know if and how a company is spending money in politics.

This paper highlights the differences and broad implications of rules governing political spending by corporations and unions. It recommends Congress adopt a comprehensive disclosure regime like the DISCLOSE Act and the SEC meet its responsibility to update disclosure laws for corporate political spending in the wake of Citizens United...."

http://www.demos.org/publication/do-corporations-unions-face-same-rules-political-spending

[MohRokTah]

46. Different corproations ALWAYS face different rules and requirements.

An auto manufacturer follows different rules and regulations than a chemical plant.

A church follows different rules and regulations than a soup kitchen.

That's simply a fact amongst corporations like churches, banks, manufacturers, and unions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. And the corporations that are bribing Hillary are trying to diminish the

rules and requirements on their profit-making while tightening the screws on everyone else.

[MohRokTah]

85. No corporations are bribing Hillary.

That's a spurious charge and you damned well know it.

Bribery is illegal.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

87. Yeah. Sure. They're totally paying her tens of millions of dollars based on her business acumen and

Samuel Clemens-esque wit.

Or they're investing in the candidate they want to see in a position to influence the creating and enforcement of laws to their benefit.

a.k.a. bribery

[MohRokTah]

88. OFFS

SMH

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. So what great pearls of wisdom is Hillary dispensing in these $300,000 speeches that

the corporations with their armies of ivy league lawyers, accountants and raw human capital couldn't discern on their own? Is the board of directors really sitting there gob smacked, slapping their hands to their foreheads and saying, "Holy cow! I never realized that before! how ever did I make through decades in the multinational business environment without ever realizing this?"

Too bad none of us little people get access to such studied insights.

Perhaps Hillary should do webpage banner ads, "This one weird trick could make you a billionaire!"

[LanternWaste]

101. Isn't that something the entire electorate, by its very definition, practices?

"investing in the candidate they want to see in a position to influence the creating and enforcement of laws to their benefit...."

Isn't that something the entire electorate, by its very definition, practices?

[merrily]

14. LOL! As if there is no difference between a union formed to represent workers and WalMart.

[MohRokTah]

47. Then be specific when you vilify.

When you vilify "corporations" you vilify banks, manufacturers, churches, and yes unions. Not to mention thousnds of other organizations you might actually support.

Words mean things.

[merrily]

54. Where did I vilify corporation, banks, manufacturers, churches or unions? Please don't make up

stuff about me. Or purport to direct me. Thanks.

[Exilednight]

19. Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly called. They want their talking point back.

[MohRokTah]

48. .

[Thinkingabout]

24. Yes, unions has their lobbyists and other groups also lobby which are not unions or

Corporations.

[MohRokTah]

39. Agreed. Unions have their interests, other corporations have their interests.

For example, religious organizations are also corporations that also will have their lobbyists and interests.

What's key here is Hillary Clinton also gains support from unions. She has a broader base of donor support than Bernie Sanders, and thus a broader base of interests she will balance.

I'd rather see a broad base of interests taken into account in policy making than a narrow base.

[tennstar]

72. Corporations care about one thing

Corporations care about one thing and one thing only money.
And their shareholder returns. They will make crappy cheap stuff and will treat those that work for them like crap in order to make more money.
Unions care about workers, churches care bout their congregations.
Hillary and Obama care about the lobbyist who will fund them and find the big wall street fat cats who will be willing to buy them.
I will no longer vote for this kind of dem.

[MohRokTah]

76. Unions and churches care about money, too.

Don't kid yourself.

[Thinkingabout]

121. Do you think for one moment unions and churches don't think about their interest?

Why yes. Let me point out to you there are lots of union and church members work for and attend churches. Wrong thinking.

[cali]

31. oh fucking please. Unions are not corporations in the sense that

Halliburton or Monsanto or WalMart is a corporation. Unions are made up of workers. Corporations are responsible to their boards and shareholders. Conflating unions with corporations is not only inaccurate it's repugnant. This is EXACTLY what right wingers do. Go on over to freeperville and you can find your comment verbatim.

I'm frankly horrified to see this kind of stuff on DU.

[neverforget]

34. but are you surprised? I'm not. anything will be said or believed

for the TPP

[cali]

59. no, but I'm as disgusted as I've ever been by DU

It's so repulsive to conflate unions with corporations. Repulsive and false in almost every imaginable way.

[NYC_SKP]

74. ~~~DU Poll of 796 members, only 9% choose Hillary to 91% Sanders.

Now let's not be too disappointed!

[Jackpine Radical]

106. It's sorta like equating

"socialist" and "National Socialist" because they have the word "Socialist" in their titles.

Of course I have now invited all sorts of Godwin comments, I suppose.

There are many distinctions in law between for-profit and nonprofit corporations. In common parlance, the former are generally referred to as "corporations," while the latter are such a diverse group that they are generally called by their individual category labels--churches, nonprofits, unions, etc.

This crappy sophistry just used up an inexcusable amount of bandwidth.

[neverforget]

131. It is very disgusting but that won't stop them

in their "trust" of President Obama and the "most progressive trade" evah.

[MohRokTah]

40. Religious organizations are also corporations.

Whenever you form a group serving the interests of multiple people, that organization incorporates.

Hell, cities are corporations.

Home owners associations are corporations.

Using that broad term "corporation" covers one helluva lot of ground.

[tennstar]

78. Hey look over here

Hey look over here don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
That is all you are doing with your corporate BS cause that is all you can do with Hillary.

[MohRokTah]

79. Hey, look fucking closer!

Specify banks and Wall Street firms when you mean Banks and Wall Street Firms, like the OP did.

Then you aren't broad brushing ALL corporations.

[tennstar]

93. Behind the curtain

Like people on this sight care that you have a need to point this out instead of talking about your beloved Hillary and how she is completely sold out to wall street
Look over here!

[MohRokTah]

49. Then BE SPECIFIC when you vilify. eom

[cali]

63. oh for fuck's sake, you know precisely what I'm "vilifying"

so does everyone else with a few functioning brain cells.

How how about YOU stop conflating Unions with corporations: And let me be specific here:

The corporations that have so generously given to your candidate and the dem party and co-opted it to an alarming degree- from Goldman to Monsanto, from Wall Street to Hollywood and all points between.

[MohRokTah]

66. When you say "corporations", that means ALL corporations.

Words mean things.

[cali]

69. bullshit.

[LanternWaste]

105. Your distinctions lacking any relevant difference are staggering

Your distinctions lacking any relevant difference are staggering both in their depth of analysis and breadth of objective and supporting statements.

[cali]

108. some things are so in your face obvious that they don't need any analysis

conflating unions with corporations and pretending that someone referring to corporate influence within the political system, is also referring to churches, is puerile garbage and game playing. fuck that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. So is DU. What's your point?

[MohRokTah]

43. You damn near got the point.

When people on DU bemoan "corporations", that's one broad base of organizations being vilified.

But then again, DU has little to do with reality most of the time. It's become a bubble and should be reminded that words mean things and "corporation" covers one helluva lot of ground.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. "Corporation" in the pejorative sense is shorthand for those entities that

possess the means to influence the creation of laws beneficial to their profit and to the detriment of fair competition, labor and consumer interests. DU and the unions don't operate in that manner. But the CORPORATIONS paying tens of millions to the Clintons do.

[MohRokTah]

82. No, it isn't. It means literally...

a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Words mean things.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. Before I lost everything in the Great Recession I was a S Corporation with one employee; myself.

I incorporated because I didn't want someone to take away my car and sue me if I screwed up.

[cali]

142. yes, yes. of course we're referring to people like you when wer're referring

big corporate money and corporate influence. Who could doubt that?

Man, I dislike disingenuous crap.

[L0oniX]

102. Epic fail.

[MohRokTah]

113. .

[Scuba]

168. Wow. Just wow.

[Exilednight]

10. You should look that up and get back to us. Although,

Considering Bernie's wealth, or lack there when compared to other (former) Senators, I doubt you'll find much, if anything.

[Thinkingabout]

15. Accepting a dollar is accepting money, all should be aware of lobbyists activity,

It is not limited. Did you know he works with lobbyists?

[Exilednight]

23. Every senator works with lobbyist, but not all take money from them. With that being said

I feel much more comfortable if he took money from Unions and labor organizations and not corporations that are way too keen to find a way to outsource your job.

[Thinkingabout]

26. You may feel more comfortable with a congressional member taking money from a union

But it is still money. He has also taken money from corporations. This is why I say it needs to stop. It does not elevate any candidate by saying another takes money from anyone. We know this, it is the reason unions, AARP, etc has funds for lobbying.

Perhaps if Bernie was a good speaker he could get big bucks also.

[cali]

32. what unions have given to Bernie over the years, is a pitifully small amount

and Bernie isn't interested in lining his pockets. Maybe it's a Vermont thing. Pat Leahy has been in the Senate for 40 years and his personal fortune is even smaller than Bernie's. And Pat Leahy absolutely could have lined his pockets quite well- not to the extent of HRC of course, but quite well. He CHOSE not to get rich off of being in Congress- unlike so many others. Whether you support Hillary or not, that should be celebrated, not sneered at.

In any case, Hillary is not a galvanizing speaker, and that's not why she got paid big bucks.

[Thinkingabout]

124. It isn't my problem the unions does not give more to Bernie.

Hillary gets paid nicely for her speeches and presence, again I am not responsible for the lack of opportunity for Bernie to be paid for speeches and his presence.

[Marr]

42. lol! You're killing me with this stuff.

"If Bernie was a good speaker he could get big bucks also."

God, I'm actually, sincerely laughing. Yeah, that Hillary-- she's the Katey Perry of speaking engagements. What a fucking show! Did you see her Superbowl Halftime show where she talked about trade deficits?? Lights, costumes... man! That's entertainment! Bernie just needs to up his game!



Incredibly basic fact of life on planet Earth:

Politicians are paid to speak because the parties who hire them want to give them money-- not because they're electrifying performers. Wall Street wants to give Hillary money. They want her to do well. Unions want to give Sanders money. They want him to do prevail, in exactly the same way that Goldman Sachs wants Hillary to prevail.

[Exilednight]

96. Which corporations? I've googled it and found nothing

Except a few right wing sites making accusations, but nothing solid.

[MohRokTah]

44. "Lobbyist", another bogeyman term thrown about on DU that covers a lot of ground.

Thanks for pointing this out.

People vilify too broadly too often and need to be reminded that words can cover a lot of ground that they may happen to support.

[tennstar]

95. Lobbyist

Let's see you defend Hillary instead of diverting the discussion!
Oops guess you can't
Cause she already sold out well before Billy left office

[MohRokTah]

112. OFFS

[Thinkingabout]

127. Yes, we know the games they play.

[Oilwellian]

128. Yes, darn Obama for throwing out that bogeyman during his 2008 campaign!

[MohRokTah]

129. Yes, he did.

I bet you don't mind environmental lobbyists, union lobbyists, or several other types of lobbyists.

[Exilednight]

97. There's a big difference between accepting A dollar and accepting $300000.00

[Thinkingabout]

126. So you say. It is like pay checks, some are small, some are larger.

[Exilednight]

138. Take a dollar and send it to any Senator and then come back and tell me how much influence it bought

You.

[Thinkingabout]

145. Yes, it probably takes more.

[merrily]

17. Why look up anything, when insinuating makes a much quicker post?

[L0oniX]

104. ...and these people vote too.

[cali]

143. it burns.

[merrily]

22. Looks as though retired people are his biggest "industry" sector.

And various workers are his biggest donors.

Fucking crook!


https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000528

[NYC_SKP]

20. She's a Job Killer. Remember that. She's a Killer of Jobs. Loves outsourcing, loves overseas jobs.

She's silent on the TPP, is a huge friend to global trade and multinational corporations.

Those years as Secretary of State were valuable years to her and to the family foundation.

This is her Achilles heel.

And this is why her supporters so fear Bernie Sanders.

[JaneyVee]

27. No one fears Bernie Sanders. No one.

And how exactly does someone prevent private corporations from outsourcing? Corporations are global entities and have no allegiance to any one Nation.

[NYC_SKP]

30. Education... Knowledge is power. Tell enough people the truth and they'll make the change.

Tell them about job losses due to crappy trade deals and they'll vote in more supportive legislators.

Those legislators can create incentives for domestic job creators and, better still, support employee ownership with tax and other incentives.

Easy Peasy.

Senator Sanders Introduces Bills to Support Employee Ownership

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has introduced two pieces of legislation that could give an enormous boost to employee ownership in this country.

The first bill, the Worker Ownership, Readiness and Knowledge (WORK) Act, would promote employee ownership and employee participation in company decision-making. Specifically, this bill would authorize the Department of Labor to provide education and outreach, training, grants, and technical support for local and state programs dedicated to the promotion of employee ownership and participation. According to Sanders’ office, “This legislation is modeled on the success of the Vermont Employee Ownership Center which has done an excellent job in educating workers, retiring business owners, and others about the benefits of worker ownership.”

The second bill, the U.S. Employee Ownership Bank Act, would provide loans and loan guarantees to employees to purchase a business through an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) or a worker-owned cooperative. It is intended to increase and retain jobs in the U.S. and strengthen the U.S. economy.

Both measures are cosponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii.).

http://www.veoc.org/node/68

See, employee owned businesses won't ship their own jobs to China, won't fly around in jets pretending to help people.

Employee ownership increases productivity and job satisfaction, lower illnesses and absenteeism.

It's a win win.

[JaneyVee]

33. This still wouldn't prevent outsourcing...

Most outsourcing is done to boost profits. No corporation is going to stay in business for the sake of employee's well being. Taxing outsourcers is a good idea but Repubs blocked Dem efforts to do so. The only incentive corporations want is more tax breaks. I welcome Bernie's bill, and it would help employee's, but only if you believe corporations care about employee's.

[NYC_SKP]

41. When the corporation board is composed of employees, it makes a difference. nt

[JaneyVee]

51. True, but even then...

It would come down to profits. Employee's on the board would still be faced with a choice between outsourcing, layoffs, or a complete shut down. I think Bernie's bill is great, but it's impossible to force corporations to do anything, their ultimate leverage is closing up shop and blaming govt regulation.

[MohRokTah]

45. How does that alter facts related to labor arbitrage?

I live in the real global economy. Until we can get wages increased internationally, offshoring will happen.

And outsourcing is not necessarily bad. Many companies outsourcing IT and back office functions are demanding the outsourcer and all people working the account be located in the US, and that's a good thing.

Words mean things. Simply vilifying outsourcing is nonsense. Specify offshored outsourcing and you get closer to your real meaning. And many times labor arbitrage does not outweigh quality of service as so many corporations which outsourced to offshore companies have come to realize.

[NYC_SKP]

52. You seem resigned to outsourcing and globalism. That's very sad, you've given up.

If more and more people resist, we can turn it around.

We are a democracy, we can vote against those who are taking away our rights to self determination.

The only reason, and I mean ONLY reason, we need global trade is to get cheap shit that we don't need.

We can grow our own food, make our own electronics.

I defy you to name one vital thing that requires us to engage in global trade.

Name one.

[MohRokTah]

53. I embrace and welcome globalism.

Refusing to see the future is foolish.

We are one species on one planet. The globe must become united and historically, trade has always unified diverse cultures and communities.

[99Forever]

29. Wadda surprise.

Not.

[Gamecock Lefty]

37. Fear of Sanders? GOOD ONE!

I like Sanders, but as a Hillary supporter, I have ZERO fear of him. Zilch.

[KMOD]

38. HRC is respected and admired. It's no wonder

people pay her to speak.

Here are a few of the things she talked about

Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered the keynote address at the Dreamforce Conference in San Francisco. Clinton spoke to the technology community and urged them to continue to innovate. The conference, sponsored by SalesForce, focused on the future of technology. Clinton said, “What we have to be really focused on now is making sure that the benefits of technology to people’s lives outweigh the pitfalls — and it is as evenly distributed as it is possible to do — creating more jobs, connecting up more families and communities, and expanding our horizons.” In addition, Clinton praised SalesForce CEO Marc Benioff for his charity work. She also voiced her support for Net Neutrality as broadband internet companies begin to stream certain businesses content faster in return for payment. Net Neutrality would ensure that the internet provider could not slow down a sites content simply because they did not pay.

http://hillaryspeeches.com/2014/11/10/dreamforce-conference/

Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared at the BIO International Convention in San Diego, California. The convention was for the biotech industry, which includes a number of pharmaceutical companies. Clinton sees a trend that biotech companies are outsourcing operations, something that concerns her. Clinton wants this change, saying, “I don’t want to see biotech companies or pharma companies moving out of our country simply because of some perceived tax disadvantage and potential tax advantage somewhere else,”

http://hillaryspeeches.com/2014/06/29/bio-international-convention/

[cali]

50. and Corning?

it's utterly absurd to think that corporations like Corning pay her merely because she's "respected and admired".

And anyone who doesn't think this isn't going to be a huge issue if she's the nominee, is under a delusion.

[NYC_SKP]

55. She'd have to pay ME to sit still for more than ten seconds. There's no way she's paid for talking.

She's paid for influence.

The speech thing is brilliant, however.

It's the perfect money laundering scheme.

[KMOD]

67. She gives a great speech.

http://hillaryspeeches.com/

[KMOD]

61. Here ya go, Cali

DENVER – Hillary Rodham Clinton is encouraging companies to train and hire young people, offering a new jobs pitch during her family’s annual domestic policy summit as she considers another presidential campaign.

The former secretary of state and potential presidential candidate was launching a project called “Job One” at the Clinton Global Initiative America meeting Tuesday, featuring hiring, training and mentoring initiatives from 10 companies, including The Gap, JPMorgan Chase, Microsoft and Marriott.

Clinton planned to address economic growth and youth employment during the meeting and was unveiling partnerships aimed at helping people age 16-24 who are out of school and unemployed. Students preparing for the workforce in the aftermath of the recession have faced persistently high unemployment levels at rates about twice the national average.

“Many Americans are still feeling that they have not recovered from the Great Recession. They are still worried about their future, the future of their children,” Clinton said in an interview last week with Fox News, pointing to culprits like student debt, stagnant wages and income inequality. “They look and they say, ‘What happened to the American dream?’”

http://www.pressconnects.com/story/money/2014/06/24/corning-inc-involved-in-hillary-clintons-youth-jobs-push/11301267/

[FlatBaroque]

58. "People" don't pay her to speak

Corporate interests who expect legislative favors invest in speakers for an expected, positive return on investment. Sometimes the speakers are paid to entertain, or to motivate. But when politicians are paid millions to speak, when there is no apparent benefit, it is because there is an expectation of future, economic benefit.

[KMOD]

64. HRC is very motivational

You can find most of her speeches here.

http://hillaryspeeches.com/

Enjoy.

[FlatBaroque]

68. I am

literally laughing out loud. Thank you.

[L0oniX]

171. Indeed! I am very motivated to never vote for Goldman and Kissinger's buddy.

[L0oniX]

160. Well ...we know Goldman Sachs loves her too.

[KMOD]

163. oh yes,

They made a donation to the Clinton Foundation to help create jobs, improve access to early childhood education, help farmers in Africa, help Haiti rebuild, and support women world wide with training and education. Horrible stuff, indeed.

[L0oniX]

170. This post was hidden by jury decision.

Yes ...Goldman is a saint. We should be thankful for the 1%.

[RiverNoord]

56. The entire 'speaking' circuit is a farce.

Nobody merits hundreds of thousands of dollars for a couple of hours of speaking to a business group. It's pure corruption - play the game our way and you'll be set for life.

[RiverLover]

60. Aw, but its "soft corruption", very difficult to prove quid pro quo.

Its very popular with con artists.

[RiverNoord]

73. Of course.

That's the point. It's crystal-clear that it influences politicians to provide access to and promote the agendas of the companies that will eventually make them rich.

However, proving a specific instance of the traditional and still prevailing indicators of bribery is just about impossible.

Mega-corporations have simply developed highly sophisticated methods of bribery, and nothing short of a Constitutional amendment will prevent this from consuming our entire 'democratic' process.

[Fuddnik]

70. Shhhhh. You're breaking the Omerta Rule.

Speaking the unspeakable.

Now, about that elephant.

[RiverNoord]

77. It's amazing how the glaringly obvious

methods of institutionalized bribery that drive most public policy at the state legislature/federal government levels are effectively kept out of public discourse on politics.

The corporate media keeps public dialog at a tabloid level and promotes language and viewpoints that encourage total ignorance of the real power structure of the United States.

[cali]

71. +1 exactly right.

[ibewlu606]

57. Rec'd

I remember making fun of Teabaggers for being so willing to get used as tools and cannon fodder. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that Dems would be so willfully ignorant as to rationalize a corporate takeover as somehow good for America.

[fredamae]

80. Hey...This association is perfectly

Fine because it'sa Democrat because Dems ALWAYS work their #1 Priority: "The base" Riiight?

(where is That dripping sarcasm button)

[KMOD]

91. Here's some more on the March 18th speech

Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a thirty minute speech at the Montreal Chamber of Commerce in Montreal, Canada on Tuesday. During which, she focused largely on the tensions between the United States and Russia over Crimea. Clinton has been critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s power grab in Crimea. She stressed how important it was for the US and Canada to work together with NATO and Europe to isolate Russia as a part of global sanctions.

http://hillaryspeeches.com/2014/03/19/montreal-chamber-of-commerce/

“I think Canada and the United States can inject some real thoughtful analysis as to how we can deter further aggression against free people,” Clinton said during a question-and-answer period that followed her speech to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal.

“A lot of your military leaders have played significant roles and I think we have to remain closely unified in trying to think of what happens next. How will we deal with what I’m afraid we’re in for, which is a lot of probing and testing.”

Instead of “rattling sabres,” she suggested NATO proceed with its sanctions and provide timely financial and technical support to the government in Kyiv. She said the allies must also make it clear to Ukraine that it have an inclusive government.

Clinton also said steps must be taken to help European countries become less reliant on Russian energy sources.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1217288/hillary-clinton-says-canada-key-to-nato-amid-crimea-crisis/

[polly7]

137. No offense, but why do we need her speaking here at all? nt.

[KMOD]

139. She was asked to speak there.

Russia has been interfering with Canada on trade.

While she mostly spoke about empowering women, she was asked specifically about Russia because of her knowledge of the situation.

and no offense taken.

[polly7]

153. Russia has been interfering with Canada on trade?

Canada has had to lay off workers recently partly because of the sanctions against Russia. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10874726

We have our own experts on empowering women and with Russian relations. Do you mean her knowledge of the coup in Ukraine? How does she know any more about 'Russia' than our many experts (apart from the Ukrainian coup, of course)?

Sorry .... I saw her laugh after the brutal torture and sodomy of a human being - "We came, he died" lol and heard her fantastical story of being attacked in Bosnia - I don't think we need that kind of 'expertise' here.

Women here are already more empowered here than there, what could she have to offer on that that would help us?

[KMOD]

154. Didn't Russia ban Cananda food imports?

I'm sorry that I mistook you for someone who was genuinely interested.

She was invited to speak. It was sold-old. She was greeted quite warmly. Perhaps you should ask the participants who paid to hear her speak.

[polly7]

156. I am genuinely interested.

Last edited Wed May 20, 2015, 01:23 PM - Edit history (4)

Just a bit baffled that you seem to believe we need 'expertise' for Russian relations and women's issues and that she was the person who could deliver it.

Of course she'd be greeted warmly. I will have to look up who it was that invited her to speak. eta: Duh (me). I had just very quickly and briefly skimmed your post. The Chamber of Commerce - so she was pushing the Russia bad meme pretty hard, eh? Hoping to justify the slaughter of all those Ukrainians who didn't want the brutal coup or to be indebted to the IMF and opening up Ukraine's resources further to global corporations that will rob them blind? Figures. Yes .......... we CERTAINLY needed her to speak on that - how much did she get paid for it?

Never mind, I got my answers.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM

RBC Convention Centre Winnipeg
375 York Ave.
Winnipeg, MB R3C 3J3

Global Perspectives – A Conversation with Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Tickets: $299.25 (includes processing fee and GST)

Table of 10: $2,992.50 (includes processing fee and GST)

Clinton told about 2,000 people at a Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce luncheon that the international community has to target material that is drawing radicals to the cause.

And on to Saskatoon in front of 2,000 more people for more of the same at $96 to more than $300 per person, but refused to give an opinion on the Keystone XL pipeline.

The announcement of her Canadian appearances comes just days after an investigation detailing the high price that comes with inviting Clinton to speak, and the intriguing demands that come with her appearance.

The Washington Post learned last week that Clinton charged the University of California at Los Angeles $300,000 for a recent speaking appearance – a price that was described as a discounted “university rate.”

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/high-cost-of-speakers-like-hillary-clinton-still-213812141.html

Speaking to 2,000 people Wednesday, Clinton argued that the international community needs to target terrorist propaganda that is drawing in Muslims all over the world. Clinton added that the entire world has a stake in ending terrorism. This comes a few months after U.S. President Barack Obama urged Canada to continue combatting the terrorist threats.

Here's a question: who are they to give marching orders to Canada in this fight that was sparked in the first place by U.S. foreign policy? Unfortunately, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his successor — likely Liberal leader Justin Trudeau — will just cave into these demands and risk taxpayers' money and lives in this antiquated threat.

Canada has already been part of a decade-long war in Afghanistan that led to the loss of 158 soldiers, while also costing the federal government approximately $18 billion, which could have been allocated to other pressing matters. Furthermore, we also had to help overthrow the government of Libyan Colonel Muammar Gadhafi, who posed no threat to Canada's national security.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/op-ed-canada-should-not-be-following-marching-orders-of-hillary-clinton/article/424127#ixzz3ahU4k9WN


War, terrorists, war! Doesn't make sense to me that she'd speak up here when we hear exactly the same from our own politicians in charge - until October, anyway.

[cali]

98. Let's look closely at her relationship with one cormpany covered in another story about this

and let's be clear: Jonathan Allen is not a republican. He is, in fact a democrat. And Vox is not a right wing outlet.
<snip>
A veteran political journalist, Allen is the winner
of the National Press Foundation's prestigious Dirksen Award for reporting on Congress and National Press Club's Sandy Hume Award for political journalism. Allen left Politico in 2010 for a job in Democratic politics, but returned to journalism just weeks later.
<snip>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/15/jonathan-allen-bloomberg_n_4602789.html

Vox is headquartered near Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C and across from Bryant Park, in New York City. Founded in 2003 as SportsBlogs, Inc., by political strategist Jerome Armstrong,[5] freelance writer Tyler Bleszinski, and Markos Moulitsas (creator of Daily Kos), the network now features over 300 sites with over 400 paid writers.[6][7]



Almost a decade ago, as Hillary Clinton ran for reelection to the Senate on her way to seeking the presidency for the first time, the New York Times reported on her unusually close relationship with Corning, Inc., an upstate glass titan. Clinton advanced the company's interests, racking up a big assist by getting China to ease a trade barrier. And the firm's mostly Republican executives opened up their wallets for her campaign.

During Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family's foundation. And last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

In the laundry whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it's the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn't go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.

The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different from the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions. Her federally required financial disclosure was released to media late Friday, a time government officials and political candidates have long reserved for dumping news they hope will have a short shelf life.

<snip>
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money

[KMOD]

103. Corning joined HRC's

Job One Initiative.

Under the Job One initiative, 10 companies will commit to expanding training, hiring or mentoring for young people within their companies and will urge others to do the same. Other participants include Corning, Ernst & Young, Lifeway Foods, MDC Partners, Salesforce.com and Symantec.

The project will also recruit 100 small businesses to find ways to hire young people and create a new employment network through the Clinton Global Initiative to spur more job opportunities.

In all, the commitments are expected to reach about 150,000 young people, Clinton officials estimated.

JPMorgan Chase, for example, plans to create 4,000 summer jobs and will help another 20,000 young people prepare for the job market. Courtyard by Marriott is partnering with the National Academy Foundation, which helps prepare young people for college and careers, to provide job shadowing and career mentoring to more than 10,000 young people and their teachers over three years.

Gap will train 90,000 young people through partnerships with nonprofit organizations and local Gap retail stores while expanding its internship program.

http://www.pressconnects.com/story/money/2014/06/24/corning-inc-involved-in-hillary-clintons-youth-jobs-push/11301267/

[cali]

107. How does that address, if nothing else, the issue of appearance of conflict of interest?

I think there are other clear problems here, but even denying those, the appearance of conflict of interest is in your face in this specific case, and I don't see how what you posted that ameliorates that appearance.

[KMOD]

110. If you don't know what the contribution was for,

you may be one to imagine that is was some type of pay off.

However, as you can clearly see, the contribution was to help teenagers get jobs. Not very scandalous at all. In fact, a wonderful thing. Teens need jobs, I'm glad to see HRC is doing something about that.

[cali]

116. I'm not saying that there was a payoff. I'm speaking to the appearance

of a conflict of interest.

Yes, Corning made a donation to the Foundation, but they also paid her personally for a speech. That in conjunction with Corning lobbying her dept is what creates the appearance of conflict. And there are other instances in the article where corporations-some unaffiliated with the Foundation, successfully lobbied her department, subsequent to which, after leaving State, Hillary was paid big bucks for speeches.

Are you saying that the article is incorrect and that she wasn't paid personally for the speech?

from the article:

During Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family's foundation. And last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

In the laundry whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it's the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn't go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.

[KMOD]

118. They attended the intiative's Jobs One speech, and

made a contribution to it. The writer is spinning this.

[cali]

120. spinning what exactly? That she got paid personally for the speech?

because that wouldn't be spinning, that would be an outright lie. Are you saying Corning didn't lobby state? And what about the appearance of conflict? I'm hardly alone in thinking that the optics of this suck. And I'm afraid that as nominee the attacks on her will be an easy sell to a lot independent, undecided voters, as well as to some dems.

It makes no sense to me that she'd do this. It's not as if she was in financial straits at the time. She knew there was a good chance she'd be running for President when she stepped down from State. Why take any speaking gigs where she was personally paid? Hell, why take any paid speaking gigs at all during that period? It's not like it was urgent for the Foundation. It shows a puzzling lack of judgment. It's biting not just her on the ass, but the party
She may well be elected to the Presidency despite this stuff, but if she isn't, this stuff will play a significant role in her being defeated in Nov, 2016.

[KMOD]

125. Cali, you have absolutely no interest in voting for HRC.

The CGI is a tremendous foundation that helps many here and all over the world. HRC supporters, as well as many people in general, realize this. Should she actually win the Presidency, I can guarantee you that she and Bill Clinton will suspend their relationship with the foundation.

She is not hurting the party. Polls show this over and over again.

[cali]

130. No. I don't have an interest in voting for her in the primary, but if she's the nominee

I have an interest in voting for her to keep whatever repub is their nominee out of the WH.

You evidently can't answer the questions about your claim that the article's charges about her being paid personally by corporations after they lobbied State while she was Secretary, is just spin- because it isn't. It's fact.

You can't respond to what I said about her judgment in making speeches for which she was paid personally after the corporations who paid her to do so lobbied State.

She has suspended her involvement with the Foundation. I don't doubt that Bill will if she is elected- though he says he may or may not.

Yes, she's hurting the party. Polls reflect that. Most people don't find her trustworthy. It's not just democrats who vote in a Presidential election- not to mention that this news just came out last Friday, not to mention that polls this early don't foretell what polls will look like 6 or 12 months from now.

[KMOD]

132. She gets paid for speeches.

Speeches about issues people want to hear about. She spoke to Corning about her Jobs One Initiative. I guess you don't support jobs for teens, whatever.

Poll after poll after poll show that our voters support her, overwhelmingly. Be concerned all you want. I'm not.

[cali]

134. You will be. She's left herself open in an unnecessary way and it's already

having a negative impact. Thinking she's impervious is just being blind to reality.

The reason that comment President Obama made about her back in 2008, resonates, is because it hit a nerve.

[KMOD]

135. I'm from NYS.

Corning, NY is an economically depressed area. Any help in getting jobs for teenagers will be viewed as a good thing.

I gave a link above which can guide you to nearly all of her speeches. Take a listen to them yourself. She always speaks on the issues most important to our base.

I'm not seeing a negative impact in our party at all. Democrats overwhelming support her.

[KoKo]

114. Corning and China.....Anecdotally

I just replaced a broken "Corningware" bowl,stamped made in the USA, that I'd had for over 20 years with a replacement stamped "Made in China." I didn't want to buy it because there have been some problems with Chinese made dishware in the past when American companies switched their production to China...but, it was a size that I needed. Corning isn't the only company to relocate production of dishware to China that was formerly made here by American Workers and with local ingredients. With China product the quality is often less than the origianal produced here and there's little oversight or inspection of the ingredients going many of the products. Plus, those producing the products make pennies compared to worker in the USA.

Another company Oneida (maker of stainless steel flatware for decades) also moved their production to China. Try to find any stainless steel flatware/serving ware that isn't made in China today. Some products have had to be recalled because of Radiation. And, who knows what's in glazes or colorings in some the dishware that hasn't yet been discovered. Children's bracelets have had several major recalls because of lead in the metal and other items made in china for both children and adults have been recalled for harmful ingredients not allowed in products here in the USA.

This is what Offshoring has achieved.

[KMOD]

117. French White is made in China, however

Simply Lite Corningware is made in the USA, Stove top Corningware is made in France.

[KoKo]

133. It is "French White"

Formerly USA..now China.

[Cheese Sandwich]

100. Thanks. Yes, Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her

Last edited Mon May 18, 2015, 01:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Corning's in good company in padding the Clinton family bank account after lobbying the State Department and donating to the foundation. Qualcomm and salesforce.com did that, too. Irwin Jacobs, a founder of Qualcomm, and Marc Benioff, a founder of salesforce.com, also cut $25,000 checks to the now-defunct Ready for Hillary Super PAC. Hillary Clinton spoke to their companies on the same day, October 14, 2014. She collected more than half a million dollars from them that day, adding to the $225,500 salesforce.com had paid her to speak eight months earlier.

And Microsoft, the American Institute of Architects, AT&T, SAP America, Oraclem, and Telefonica all paid Bill Clinton six-figure sums to speak as Hillary laid the groundwork for her presidential campaign.



And that list, which includes Clinton Foundation donors, is hardly the end of it. There's a solid set of companies and associations that had nothing to do with the foundation but lobbied State while Clinton was there and then paid for her to speak to them. Xerox, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, in addition to Corning, all lobbied Clinton's department on trade matters and then invited her to earn an easy check.

...

That storyline should be no less shocking for the fact that it is no longer surprising. The skimpy fig leaf of timing, that the speeches were paid for when she was between government gigs, would leave Adam blushing. And while most Democrats will shrug it off — or at least pretend to — it's the kind of behavior voters should take into account when considering whether they want to give a candidate the unparalleled power of the presidency. It goes to the most important, hardest-to-predict characteristic in a president: judgment.

Edit to add source: http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money

[KMOD]

111. I linked to some of those speeches up thread.

She speaks about all the things people want to hear. She's smart, informative and impressive.

[KoKo]

115. Well said...and if it was any Republican running...we'd be all over it.

Quote from you:

That storyline should be no less shocking for the fact that it is no longer surprising. The skimpy fig leaf of timing, that the speeches were paid for when she was between government gigs, would leave Adam blushing. And while most Democrats will shrug it off — or at least pretend to — it's the kind of behavior voters should take into account when considering whether they want to give a candidate the unparalleled power of the presidency. It goes to the most important, hardest-to-predict characteristic in a president: judgment.

Actually if Jeb and his Wife had done it after Jeb was no longer Governor of Florida....we'd call them "Grifters."

[Cheese Sandwich]

123. I know right?

That was from vox.com...

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money

[L0oniX]

172. You mean it's not a Republican running?

Why ...lots of people here are saying that if your not for Hillary you are a republican. They totally don't get it. We're only trying to help Hillary be a better republican with some relevant criticism. I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. We really do have a third party. It's the party of the 1%.

[Maedhros]

136. See the paid off local bottom feeders, passing themselves off as leaders

Kiss the ladies, shake hands with the fella's then it's "open for business!" like a cheap bordello

And they call it 'Democracy.'

[cali]

141. Apply these facts to a republican and all the Clinton defenders would be HOWLING

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

144. No. No. No. They paid her for her entertainment value. No quid pro quo expected.

Welllll......maybe.....nudge..nudge..wink...wink.

[cali]

148. the denial that this is problematic is amazing. The ads make themselves

hell, they're probably already made.

cue ominous music, bad picture of HRC. Flash some quick pics of her D.C. and Westchester homes.

Voice over (a woman)

You can guess the rest.

And you have to be steeped in denial to think that this won't have an impact. It's easy for the public to grasp.

[KMOD]

150. I realize this is a very concerning issue for you

but subtly calling me an idiot because I am not concerned is kind of rude, don't ya think?

[cali]

155. I wasn't calling you an idiot. I don't think you are an idiot

I do think you're in for a rude awakening, and I do think you're in denial about the appearance of conflict of interest.

[clarice]

149. Whether you are pro-Hillary or anti-Hillary...you have to admit, this is stuff that we need to know.

[arcane1]

152. Precisely. n/t

[upaloopa]

151. Didn't they say something similar to Jesus.

They claimed he was spending too much time talking to sinners. I think he said he was doing what was needed or something.

[cali]

167. speechless

[delrem]

157. "people are going to question whether she was influenced by the money she was paid"

no shit.

[L0oniX]

161. ...and on matters of going to war we have this little goody...

[delrem]

162. Today in the WP, Gerson:

How Republicans should respond to the Iraq question

"...At the time, based on judgments by the intelligence community about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, a solid, bipartisan majority favored intervention in Iraq — a majority broad enough to include then-Sen. Hillary Clinton."

Isn't it enough to make you puke?

[L0oniX]

173. Safety in numbers for a war hawk.

[6000eliot]

158. Just so you know,Republicans are posting negative information about

Hillary on left-leaning websites in order to discredit her with Democratic voters.

[delrem]

159. IMO Hillary Clinton shouldn't have taken all that money.

It puts her in a totally compromised and indefensible position. Like, the epitome of "bought and paid for".

And just for your information, my having access to "negative information" that helps inform my opinion doesn't depend on "Republicans", nor does my opinion make me a "Republican".

It's just plain nuts to expect DU be a 100% pro-Hillary zone.

[6000eliot]

164. Just so you know, Republicans are posting negative information

about Hillary Clinton on left-leaning websites in order to influence Democratic voters.

[delrem]

166. Just so you know, Hillary Clinton has opponents on the Dem side.

So I would think that Hillary Clinton and her supporters ought to deal with issues and criticisms honestly, and not try to shut down the political conversation.

[Scuba]

169. Hillary has discredited herself. She needs no help from the right or left.

[daredtowork]

165. We could solve poverty this way!

Here's an idea - just start calling people on welfare to speak on their condition. Put the 2.5 million into a trust for them. Keep doing that until no one is on welfare anymore. Problem solved.