Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdabbadabba | Hacker News Reader

Can'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't need the money that badly, and if she really were selling favors, you can bet they'd be more than $225,000!

That said, this is a lesson in why public officials should be concerned about the appearance 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've done anything else wrong or not. It doesn't look good to public officials to be giving paid speeches while they are still in office.

View on HN

Sure, HRC wouldn't cross the street for $200k. However, she and Bill have given speeches like that on a regular basis for years, to the same groups of people. Their campaigns and charitable organizations have been funded by those people too. You don't think that eventually, the cumulative tens of millions of dollars might have an effect on their thinking and decisions?

> You don't think that eventually, the cumulative tens of millions of dollars might have an effect on their thinking and decisions?

And I'm sure all these donors' interests are aligned, right?

And, to be a little less flippant, I do think that the company a person keeps affects a person's thinking. So if a company can buy their way into Hillary Clinton's circle, I accept that they have managed to buy some amount of influence. But I think this influence is negligible compared to Clinton's formal advisers and organic professional network. You also have to remember that most of these companies have far more effective ways of influencing government than paying for some lousy speeches, none of which is Clinton's doing.

> And I'm sure all these donors' interests are aligned, right?

Eh? I think they're broadly aligned. They're aligned when it comes to how corporations and executives should be treated by the courts and regulatory agencies. They're aligned on the extent and structure of free trade pacts. They're aligned on corporate taxation. They're aligned with Bill Clinton's claim that the only thing wrong with the American economy is a "skills gap."

Sure there's going to be disagreement (often severe) on particular points here and there but the broad thrust the economic "Washington Consensus" that Bill Clinton championed is a point of alignment among Clinton's donor class.

The total between them is $153 million.

It's absurd to the point of being disingenuous that you ignore the mountains of systemic corruption and sweet heart laws and legal protections and lack of prosecutions these firms which pay politicians receive.

Probably because nobody to my knowledge has made any cogent attempt to link these speeches to any "sweet heart laws" or other special legal protections. For that matter, I'm not aware of any specific accusation that Clinton drove the creation of any such protection for a U.S. company as secretary of state, whether related to her speeches or not.

The only case I know of is the State Department's opposition to a minimum-wage increase in Haiti. And this, while I find it objectionable, was clearly done to further U.S. interests as a whole, not to favor one U.S. industry or interest group over another. It's mercantilist, but its not corrupt.

If there are indeed "mountains" of such examples, I expect that HN community should be able to come up with at least a few good examples, no? (But note: legitimate policy choices with which you happen to disagree are not necessarily evidence of corruption.)

Now you're just plain lying.

Clinton has been strongly against re-instating the Glass-Steagal Act which would have prevented the 2008 disaster. She does this because she's sold out to Wall Street, since obviously they don't want that law back on the books either.

> which would have prevented the 2008 disaster.

Probably not. The biggest players in the collapse, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and AIG, were not commercial banks that would have been restrained under Glass-Steagal. In fact, much of the financial structure that eventually collapsed in 2008 began to accumulate well before GLBA in 1999.

And, again, I think you're overlooking the fact that there are non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back Glass-Steagal. More importantly, you're ignoring the fact that Clinton does support Dodd-Frank, as well as improvements to Dodd-Frank that would be better suited to address the causes of the 2008 collapse than just reinstating Glass-Steagal.

So, she supports fairly robust new bank regulations--she just doesn't support your favorite, so you say she's corrupt (and tell me I'm 'lying' by suggesting otherwise--civil!).

http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-a... https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/0...

You actually posted a link from Hillary's own website as supporting evidence? Do you work for her campaign?

Your first link is good though, but it also supports reinstating Glass-Steagal (did you read it?). It just makes the case that G-S wouldn't have stopped the 2008 disaster, but that its repeal was part of the same bunch of deregulation that happened at that time period, by the same players. It closes with a call to reinstate G-S, along with other legislation more focused on the actual causes of the 2008 crash, but it does say G-S is a good idea and that the financial system needs as many fail-safes of that kind as it can get.

So, going by your first link and ignoring your second one because it's obviously going to be horribly biased, I don't see any non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back G-S, but you do make a good case that G-S wouldn't have avoided the 2008 problem. However, again going by your first link, it does point out that Citigroup and Bank of America were also greatly involved in the 2008 housing crash and they would have been restrained from that by G-S, so I do think it's fair to say that G-S would have helped, though it would not have prevented the crash.

I posted the link from Clinton's website to demonstrate that she supports policies that regulate Wall Street. What better source is there? If you're going to accuse Clinton of being bought and paid for by Wall Street execs, you might consider actually reading her proposals to regulate Wall Street first.

As for the article, yes I did read it. And yes, it supports reinstating Glass Steagal but also says "Clinton's plan is the most substantive response to the Great Recession as it actually happened." If that's true (or even close to true), why is it of such overriding significance whether Clinton also supports Glass Steagal, specifically? She doesn't want to reinstate it because she think's it is unnecessary and she has a different proposal that she thinks is better.

>I think you're overlooking the fact that there are non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back Glass-Steagal.

I'd love to hear your attempt at these.

Would have prevented something is a big assumption, especially when at the time prior to 2008 you had a party in power that wants to away with regulation and maximize military spending on our credit card which compounded issues already going on.

I have no doubt the Clintons have been careful about hiding any evidence of their corruption. They ran their own private email servers and make sure to create 'legitimate' reasons for all of their policy decisions. As it is they refuse to acknowledge any of this as a conflict of interest and refuse to take steps to reduce the conflicts of interest.

They're not buying favors. They're buying access just like any lobbyist. The relevant thing to understand about HRC is that she's been heavily in the access selling business for about 25 years now.

Think about how much that would warp your worldview if a large bulk of the people you meet day-in and day-out for decades paid six figure sums to talk to you?

There's a lot right here, but I think you've got one crucial detail wrong. The recipients of Clinton's speeches hardly constitute the "large bulk" of the people she deals with every day. I think the more accurate phrase would be "tiny fraction" in the context of the rest of the Obama administration, professional advisers, staff, people met at official State Department functions, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com