By Mickey Friedman
February 13, 2016
When it comes to money, honey, two is better than one. Clyde McPhatter sang “before I say I love you so I want: Money, honey … Money, honey, if you want to get along with me.” But he was several steps behind Bill and Hillary Clinton. A veritable money machine.
Bill’s the best. But Hill’s no slouch. He’s the aw shucks, down home Arkansas poor boy who’s made it good. Next to Martin Luther King I never heard anyone so good with words. The man could make you weep, make you believe that no one’s ever cared as much for the common folk. Thing is Bill loves his money. And Hill’s right behind him.
According to the Wall Street Journal, over more than two decades, “Clinton, Inc. … raised between $2 billion and $3 billion from all sources, including individual donors, corporate contributors and foreign governments … Between $1.3 billion and $2 billion came from industry sources.”
The Journal notes that not to be outdone “Presidents George H.W and George W. Bush raised a total of $2.9 billion for their four presidential bids, their presidential foundations, as well as for the Republican National Committee when they were in the White House.”
Counting rich people’s money is an inexact science: “because the Clintons aren’t required to make public any details about donations to their foundation. They voluntarily report donor names, however, and donation amounts within broad ranges.” As for their charitable works, a recent New York Times investigation found “the Clinton Foundation functions both to do good deeds and to enhance the Clinton brand, never more so than while Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for president.”
The Times demonstrates how “when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, leaders of the foundation’s health care arm lobbied her department to shift American aid dollars away from H.I.V. programs in Rwanda in order to fund a training program for health professionals that the foundation helped design. The proposed reallocation, a heavy bureaucratic lift in Washington, was approved over the objection of some State Department technical experts …”
It seems Bill Clinton’s deep appreciation of Rwanda’s leader isn’t shared by all. The Times notes that many accuse “the Kagame government of disregarding human rights, aiding armed rebels in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo and suppressing political opponents and the media, at times violently.”
As for where the Foundation gets its money, the Times reports: “big-name companies vie to buy sponsorships at prices of $250,000 and up, money that has helped subsidize the foundation’s annual operating costs. Last year, the foundation and two subsidiaries had revenues of more than $214 million.” Nevertheless the Clinton Foundation “had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.” One of these conflict of interests centered on Douglas J. Band, “who had started a lucrative corporate consulting firm — which Mr. Clinton joined as a paid adviser — while overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation’s glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.”
Money, honey.
Recently Hillary went to the Museum of Natural History, a museum near and dear to my heart, the museum that all New York City school kids go to see the dinosaurs and the big whale.
Hillary not only saw the whale but left with a check for $275,000. Because she spoke to clients of GoldenTree Asset Management. According to the Times she earned “more than $2 million in less than seven months” speaking to Wall Street.
I know Bill and Hill can tell a good story, maybe throw in a joke here and there, but isn’t 275k is a bit much for one talk. The Times reported in May 2015 that they “made at least $30 million over the last 16 months, mainly from giving paid speeches to corporations, banks and other organizations.” A total of “more than $125 million on the circuit since leaving the White House in 2001.” Bill makes “about an average of about $250,000 per speech while Hillary banks $235,000.” Clearly, two is better than one.
They spoke to brokers and bankers and GE, our local poisoner, to CISCO, Microsoft and the pharmaceutical industry. Hillary earned $675,000 for three speeches to Goldman Sachs.
Maybe they’re selling influence? Bill and Hill’s connection with movers and shakers both here and abroad. Maybe it’s a down payment?
So who’s contributing to Hillary’s campaign? Remember Goldman Sachs? They’ve given her campaign $760,740. A paltry second to Citigroup’s $824,402. Wonder why your credit card late fees are so high?
So how might this play in Iowa where the median household income is $52,229 a year? Hillary can make that in fifteen minutes at the Museum of Natural History.
At the end of the day, it’s money honey two.
______________________________________________________________________________
NOTES
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/us/politics/rwanda-bill-hillary-clinton-foundation.html
Money Honey Two was first published in The Berkshire Record of February 4, 2016.