Clinton Earns $12 Million Speaking, Writing After Service


Hillary Clinton has earned at least $12 million in 16 months since leaving the State Department, a windfall at odds with her party’s call to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor.

Clinton’s income since her resignation as secretary of state in February 2013 is derived mostly from her latest memoir, speeches and paid appearances at corporate retreats, according to an analysis of data compiled by Bloomberg.

At least 12 organizations that previously booked President Bill Clinton – who has been paid almost $106 million in speaking fees alone since he left the White House – also hired his wife. Among them: Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and the National Association of Realtors.


I think we can be reasonably sure the National Association of Realtors, for example, didn’t somehow think Hillary Clinton would impart words of wisdom that would help them sell better.

They did it because they think she will or might be the next president and they’re buying her early.


Good for her. That’s what capitalism is all about. However it does make it a bit harder for her to play the class warfare card.


If people want to pay to listen to her talk I don’t care how much she makes. On the other hand, the students at UNLV are very right to complain that their university spending $250k for her to give a speech is way too much. Such is the problem when administrators are spending other people’s money.


That’s not capitalism. That’s influence-peddling. She doesn’t bring $250k worth of value for 20 minutes of speaking. I’d have more respect for her if she was doing these speeches after she was no longer running for office.

It’s unseemly.


I agree.


Yeah, wealthy Clintons also use trusts to limit estate tax they back. Boo!

That’s why Democrats don’t worry about raising taxes. Taxes are only for THE REST OF US TO PAY.


It may be unseemly, but it seems that you should have a problem with the group who is paying her, not with Clinton herself. She is taking what is being offered (or what her speaking fee is). She is not forcing them to pay her.

Hillary Clinton is just one step above the President in my eyes, so this is not a post to praise her, but if someone offered me that kind of money, I would certainly speak to them for 20 minutes. Heck, I might even extend that to 30 minutes just because I am a generous kind of guy!!!:smiley:




An extra ten minutes for free!? That’s a $125,000 value! What a bargain! :smiley:


Look at all the liberals in the USA all but camping out in front of the ballot box waiting to vote for a 1%er.

As their mentality goes:

Rich democrat = okay

Rich republican = all things evil.




Here, Here! Those were my exact thoughts.:thumbsup:

We can’t have it both ways!

Those who want to make a big deal out of it, should be asked, “Do you hate capitalism, or do you just hate Clinton?” Its one or the other! At least have the guts to stand up for what you believe instead of hiding behind another issue!:shrug:


Yes, it may be unseemly, but, its both capitalism and influence-peddling… that is all part of capitalism.

Its like a lot of apologists, who in the course of defending the faith, are pitching their books…You can say that’s not capitalism, that’s apologetics.

It just depends on how you look at it.

If you don’t like the message, don’t buy the message. But if someone else (or several someone elses do…well, that’s the market that drives the utility of the book, service, or good…it really is capitalism)…but, I agree, it really is unseemly.


It’ll play badly with the general electorate. The Clintons have always wanted it both ways - they want to be seen as great public servants and want to make their fortune as well. Bill got away with it because of his uncanny ability to show empathy to all; Hillary isn’t so lucky. She’ll crack under pressure. I don’t know if it would cost her the Democratic nomination (she is going to have strong supporter left from 2004), but I think it would cost her the general election against a strong Republican candidate (which the Republicans have had difficulty identifying in the last few elections).


I’m not sure how much of an impact her income will have on the next election. That’s generally not a stone throwing game that a lot of glass house owning politicians care to engage in. :stuck_out_tongue:


No - you’re wrong. I hate hypocrisy. The left/Democrats/Hillary get so much political mileage from playing the class warfare/class envy card. Yet, they cash in on the system too. They criticize as evil those who make a profit - such as the “evil” corporations. But then they go and do the same. Then again, they are hypocritical on so many issues - the environment, women’s rights, etc.





No, I’m right…read again. you answered my question…you have no issue with capitalism, what you have issues with is Clinton. And, you stated it with honesty. Actually I like that. Most posters tippy toe around the issue and try to turn it into something else…so its not me who’s the hypocrite, its those people…because quite frankly, I am apolitical, don’t vote, and generally don’t care…but that’s just me.


Are you aware that Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Republican? She just changed parties for her husband.


That isn’t the case at all. Romney was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He made a living by sending people to the unemployment line and, in his own words, didn’t care about the 47% Americans who only hold 2% of the nation’s wealth. He wasn’t relatable at all, didn’t know how to be, and he tried too hard, often making one gaffe after another in the process. The Clintons are the the opposite. Having loads of money isn’t the issue; its how people fortunate enough to have wealth can relate to and market themselves to those who don’t and rich Republicans usually stink at it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit