2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum1/2 of Clinton’s 2014 Speaking Fees Came From Groups Also Lobbying Congress
We don't need transcripts to know that this is morally reprehensible.
Philip Elliott
Groups with giant lobbying budgets gave Clinton big speaking fees ahead of 2016 presidential campaign
Almost half of the money from Hillary Clintons speaking engagements came from corporations and advocacy groups that were lobbying Congress at the same time.
The Democratic presidential candidate earned $10.2 million in 2014, her first full calendar year after leaving the State Department. Of that, $4.6 million came from groups that also spent on lobbying Congress that year, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics....
...Asked Tuesday if there were conflicts of interest in speaking to these groups, Clinton was curt with reporters in Cedar Falls, Iowa. No, she said.
Obviously, Bill and I have been blessed and were very grateful for the opportunities that we had...
http://time.com/3889577/hillary-clinton-paid-speeches-lobbyists-influence/
Great chart at article
http://time.com/3889577/hillary-clinton-paid-speeches-lobbyists-influence/
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)This is why releasing the transcripts is important. This is why her close ties to Wall St. are very concerning. This is why she's a compromised candidate. This is why we need Bernie for president.
Very big K & R.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The Republicans aren't going to wait for or care about Transcripts. Trump will eviscerate Clinton and her acceptance of that money - self funding is at the heart of his campaign and his popularity.
Thanks for the K&R.
I re-read and see your point more clearly. Money is speech now isn't it?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Trump has tapped into a deep, wide vein of disgust at the dirty cockroaches of politics; and that disgust is so strong that people are willing to burn down the house to get rid of them.
Trump can win.
senz
(11,945 posts)The answer is somewhere in this list: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/payola
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Carter was responding to a question from Hartmann about recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign financing like Citizens United.
Transcript:
HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, unlimited money in politics. It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. Your thoughts on that?
CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now its just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now weve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the elections over. The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebodys whos already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody whos just a challenger.
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/