Since 2001, when Congress doubled the salary of the president of the United States, our chief executive has made $400,000 a year. That’s some pretty good coin, and I don’t think you can say it’s a major financial sacrifice for most folks not named Donald Trump to serve as the president. Still, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect that former presidents (and in some cases, former First Ladies) won’t cash in once they leave office. I suppose we might want to have some rules about how they cash in. They probably shouldn’t be able to lobby the government for some specified period of time, for example.
There’s no doubt that there’s something unsavory about how massively the Clintons cashed in on the speaking circuit, although I think it would be less of an issue if Hillary hadn’t gone on to run for president twice.
Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.
I can’t say there is anything straightforwardly unethical here. I want to be clear about that. If people want to pay you ludicrous amounts of money to give a speech, why not take their money? Only in the most indirect way is Bill Clinton in a position to do anything for Goldman Sachs, UBS, or any other business.
Hillary, on the other hand, has most definitely opened herself up to criticisms that these speaking fees create the appearance of impropriety. People have every right to be suspicious that, having accepted these massive fees from the financial sector, she’ll go easy on them when it comes to regulation. That doesn’t mean that she actually will go easy on them, only that it would be understandable if she did. After all, she would also be a former president one day, just like her husband, and why not maintain the kind of friendly relationship with the banks that could help her bring in another $153 million?
Is this a reason not to vote for her?
I think it is. I think it’s legitimate to prefer someone, like Bernie Sanders, who hasn’t created the appearance of a conflict of interest.
But this is a judgment call, and it’s only one consideration among dozens when choosing between the two candidates.
My biggest problem here is that I just don’t think that big banks and corporations would be able to answer to the shareholders for giving out an average of $210,795 a speech if they couldn’t plausibly argue that they made more money in return. Are they making a dumb investment?
We have to believe that they’re idiots for this arrangement to be kosher.
On the other hand, when I listen to them speak, most of the time I think they’re completely clueless. So, anything is possible.
