NYT reports: Firms That Paid for Clinton Speeches Have US Gov't Interests

[SillyAmerican]

In the latest article in the New York Times on the subject of Secretary Clinton's fees for speeches given to organizations who may have been interested in influencing the administration:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't it be better for someone running for high office to understand the need to avoid even the appearance of influence?

Thoughts?

[Lyin' Steve]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had someone running for higher office who understood the need to avoid doing anything that could be twisted by the media to create controversy when there is none?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's also the Clinton Foundation. The Saudis gave the Clinton Foundation $10 million and then Hillary approved at least $29 billion in arms sales to them that is currently being used to murder Shia civilians in Yemen.

[SillyAmerican]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had someone running for higher office who understood the need to avoid doing anything that could be twisted by the media to create controversy when there is none?

Yes. And say what you will about Bernie Sanders, you wouldn't see this kind of headline coming his way.

There's also the Clinton Foundation. The Saudis gave the Clinton Foundation $10 million and then Hillary approved at least $29 billion in arms sales to them that is currently being used to murder Shia civilians in Yemen.

Yeah, and I'm of the opinion that some of the Clinton Foundation activities that have been brought to light, especially the one you mention with the Saudis, will not be so easily swept aside by Mrs. Clinton once the GE campaigns get started.

[Derpist]

There's also the Clinton Foundation. The Saudis gave the Clinton Foundation $10 million and then Hillary approved at least $29 billion in arms sales to them that is currently being used to murder Shia civilians in Yemen.

Please, those civilians are clearly just out to get America. What other motivation could drive their opposition to Al-Qaeda?

Clinton 2016

[SillyAmerican]

There's also the Clinton Foundation. The Saudis gave the Clinton Foundation $10 million and then Hillary approved at least $29 billion in arms sales to them that is currently being used to murder Shia civilians in Yemen.

Please, those civilians are clearly just out to get America. What other motivation could drive their opposition to Al-Qaeda?

Clinton 2016

No, no. Haven't you heard? Once again, it's that awful anti-Muslim video Innocence of Muslims. Clearly that's the problem.

Clinton 2016

[136or142]

Is this a joke headline?  I mean how about this for a headline?: Firms and individuals that donate tens of thousands to U.S political campaigns have U.S Government interests.

Hillary Clinton's role in the Saudi arms thing has also been thoroughly debunked.  

I try to not be apologists for any politician, but only people who have a genuine Clinton Derangement Syndrome could regard donations to a charity by a foreign government or paid speeches to a former politician as any worse than the legal bribery that is the modern campaign finance system.

Donations by foreigners are terrible, but donations by U.S branches of foreign corporations is fine?  Also, other than its illegal how is a donation by a foreign entity inherently any worse than any other large donation?

I agree that Bernie Sanders seems to have cleaner hands here, but he is one of a tiny handful, not just in those running for President, but in those running for or holding virtually any political office.

[Ebsy]

Another hatchet job from the New York Times.

[SillyAmerican]

Is this a joke headline?  I mean how about this for a headline?: Firms and individuals that donate tens of thousands to U.S political campaigns have U.S Government interests.

Hillary Clinton's role in the Saudi arms thing has also been thoroughly debunked.  

I try to not be apologists for any politician, but only people who have a genuine Clinton Derangement Syndrome could regard donations to a charity by a foreign government or paid speeches to a former politician as any worse than the legal bribery that is the modern campaign finance system.

Donations by foreigners are terrible, but donations by U.S branches of foreign corporations is fine?  Also, other than its illegal how is a donation by a foreign entity inherently any worse than any other large donation?

I agree that Bernie Sanders seems to have cleaner hands here, but he is one of a tiny handful, not just in those running for President, but in those running for or holding virtually any political office.

Well, a few things.

First of all, yes, that's the headline of the article: if you a problem with it, you should take it up with the NY Times.

Second, who says that donations by U.S branches of foreign corporations is fine? And you really have to wonder about someone rising to the defense of a prominent politician with the words "other than it's illegal...". Really? Are you reading your own objections?

And finally, if you're saying that campaign finance is in dire need of reform, you'll hear no argument to the contrary from me. But if what you're saying is that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be bothered with obeying the law and doing the right thing because, well, everybody else is doing it? Good luck selling that to the electorate...

[Landslide Lyndon]

SillyAmerican proves again that he has the most apt nick in the entire forum.

[SillyAmerican]

SillyAmerican proves again that he has the most apt nick in the entire forum.

Yes. And I have many european friends who would very much agree with you, from whom the nick sprouted...

[136or142]

Is this a joke headline?  I mean how about this for a headline?: Firms and individuals that donate tens of thousands to U.S political campaigns have U.S Government interests.

Hillary Clinton's role in the Saudi arms thing has also been thoroughly debunked.  

I try to not be apologists for any politician, but only people who have a genuine Clinton Derangement Syndrome could regard donations to a charity by a foreign government or paid speeches to a former politician as any worse than the legal bribery that is the modern campaign finance system.

Donations by foreigners are terrible, but donations by U.S branches of foreign corporations is fine?  Also, other than its illegal how is a donation by a foreign entity inherently any worse than any other large donation?

I agree that Bernie Sanders seems to have cleaner hands here, but he is one of a tiny handful, not just in those running for President, but in those running for or holding virtually any political office.

Well, a few things.

First of all, yes, that's the headline of the article: if you a problem with it, you should take it up with the NY Times.

Second, who says that donations by U.S branches of foreign corporations is fine? And you really have to wonder about someone rising to the defense of a prominent politician with the words "other than it's illegal...". Really? Are you reading your own objections?

And finally, if you're saying that campaign finance is in dire need of reform, you'll hear no argument to the contrary from me. But if what you're saying is that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be bothered with obeying the law and doing the right thing because, well, everybody else is doing it? Good luck selling that to the electorate...

No, donations by foreign entities to a U.S political campaign are illegal.  The donations given to The Clinton Foundation by foreign entities are not illegal and nor would any speeches that Hillary Clinton gave to foreign entities and was paid for be illegal, if she ever gave any speeches to foreign entities.

I thought I was clear in what I wrote, but if not, I hope this corrects any misperception.

In all of this, there is ZERO that I'm aware of that Hillary Clinton did that is illegal, and my point was that the New York Times regarding these donations to the Clinton Foundation or the money that Hillary Clinton received in giving speeches to corporate interests as somehow worse than any of the other excesses in the campaign finance system is bizarre and illogical and, in my opinion, can only come from an attitude of 'we hate Hillary.' (even as we feel she's the only candidate on the Democratic side anyway worth endorsing.)

For one instance, Ted Cruz' campaign is, I believe, largely funded by several billionaires.  How many people do you think can even name one of those billionaires?  And, what do those billionaires want in return for their donations?

According to the last filing report dates for campaign committees and outside groups as reported on opensecrets.org, Ted Cruz and his supporters have raised  $131,470,858.

These are by far the largest donors:
Wilks Brothers   $15,064,000
Renaissance Technologies   $11,000,400
Quantum Energy Partners   $10,045,900

Anybody know anything about them?