Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US government interests

I still wish we had a Constitutional amendment that restricted federal employees and appointed &#x2F; elected officials for a period of 5 years from working from any firm they had contact(1) with in their duties. It should also govern donations to charities run by said people. That and getting rid of every corporate deduction in the tax code would clear quite a bit of corruption out of the system.<p>I doubt we&#x27;ll ever get either. A simple tax system means one of the chief ways politicians reward donors goes away, and the speech &#x2F; job thing is just plain too lucrative.<p>1) the exact wording is more for lawyers than me

&gt; Clinton has said she can be trusted to spurn her donors on critical issues, noting that President Barack Obama was tough on Wall Street<p>Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

These are companies that have a responsibility to shareholders to spend funds to benefit the firm.<p>Obviously they feel the quarter million is well spent, as a bribe to influence government actions.<p>Anyone who thinks the bribes don&#x27;t have the possibility to change a politician&#x27;s actions is quite gullible.

Can we all stop pretending they paid for her speeches?

More on HRC:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=wK2K5v5bm0Q" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=wK2K5v5bm0Q</a>

Speech money is bribe money, plain and simple. These firms don&#x27;t have any interest in hearing her speech.

Every firm has government interests. Its naive to think that $225k has any meaningful sway

Why $225k is too much? Bill Clinton and Al Gore take similar money. Well known political activists take between $50k and $20k per speech. Actors are charging millions for 20 minute episode. That money seems fair for such prominent speaker.

We have an opportunity to elect the first women as President of the United States I hope we aren&#x27;t going to pick on small things and ignore that opportunity. Unless she is proven to be any different than any previous President your choices are elect the first women as President or Trump. You decide.

Can&#x27;t say any of this is surprising...or even interesting. Big shock: companies that have enough money to pay a quarter of a million dollars to have Hillary Clinton speak also have lobbied the government. I think its pretty comical that people seriously think that these companies are buying real favors from the Secretary of State for only $225,000. Hillary doesn&#x27;t need the money that badly, and if she really were selling favors, you can bet they&#x27;d be more than $225,000!<p>That said, this is a lesson in why public officials should be concerned about the <i>appearance</i> of impropriety, and not just substantive impropriety. The former can still do a lot of damage (both to yourself, and to faith in government) whether you&#x27;ve done anything else wrong or not. It doesn&#x27;t look good to public officials to be giving paid speeches while they are still in office.

Surprised the Bernie bots are still kicking, this seems like more about nothing than something.<p>Where&#x27;s the evidence of any such said corruption?<p>Just because they received money for speeches doesn&#x27;t make them corrupt, and if you believe it does well then prove it with evidence you can back up but don&#x27;t put out false claims. Yes she has gotten a good deal of money from speeches but it isn&#x27;t the only politician out there (present or past) doing them for large amounts of money.<p>It&#x27;s one thing to say you&#x27;re influenced by lobbyist groups donating to your campaign and whole other to say the speeches are used to influence your policies, they&#x27;re two separate things.<p>And even while HRC has gotten a decent amount of donations given to her campaign it&#x27;s a very small piece of the pie that is shelled out by Corporations and Lobbyist groups, look at the other side for example, do you think they aren&#x27;t COMPLETELY influenced by lobbyist groups? They practically own the Republican party.<p>Anyways as I said, more about nothing than something.