You may remember that at least one university tried to keeps secret the massive amount of money they were paying Hillary Clinton to speak on campus. But the Daily Mail is reporting that some of her contractual arrangements to speak have been brought to light.
Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state who is preparing to run for president on a populist platform of fighting income inequality, demanded $2,777 per minute for two university speaking engagements and insisted on contracts that cut off reporters’ access to her and limited the number of photos she would take with well-wishers.
The Harry Walker Agency drew up legal agreements for Clinton’s speeches at the State University of New York at Buffalo in August 2013 and at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas next month.
Combined, the two gigs netted the Clintons’ family foundation $500,000 for three hours’ work, and allowed her to cancel or reschedule the events ‘for any reason whatsoever.’
The once-and-maybe-future White House resident is routinely granted iron-grip control over the
circumstances surrounding her speeches.
Both contracts, one published online by The Washington Post and the other by The Daily Caller, paint a picture of a control-freak PR machine surrounding Hillary.
Other demands include that she be the only person on stage when she is making her massively expensive remarks. She wants nothing less than a “presidential glass panel teleprompter.”
The most delicious description was the Mail’s reference to a “laundry list of Diva demands.”
Of course, people try to defend these amazing expenses on the basis of free market capitalism. For example, Catherine Rampbell wrote in the Washington Post,
Lest there be any confusion, most compensation — but especially compensation that’s accompanied by a flock of flashbulbs — is determined not by some intrinsic measure of worldly achievement or moral worth but by what the market will bear.
But Rampbell’s comparison of Chelsea Clinton to Kim Kardashian assumes that the same market forces are at work in both cases. Kardashian and Clinton are both celebrities.
I certainly agree it should be legal for the Clintons to get whatever they can get paid.
But we have to consider that, when people pay a Clinton, they aren’t just buying celebrity or trying to make sure they get an audience. People know that the diva might end up in the White House, so they naturally begin hedging their bets.
Also, while Rampbell has a point, since Clinton is running an “I will fight income inequality” campaign, these massive fees point to the problem of hypocrisy.