More for the Corruption Files: Chelsea Clinton Gets $75k for Speaking

Do even Liberals think that Chelsea Clinton is such a great speaker that she deserves seventy-five thousand dollars for an address?

Doubt it!

But she does! Why is that?

From the New York Times: “Following Her Parents’ Lead, Chelsea Clinton Takes Stage as a Paid Speaker.”

There is a new Clinton paid to deliver speeches — Chelsea, the former first daughter — and she is commanding as much as $75,000 per appearance.

Aides emphasized that while Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton often address trade groups and Wall Street bankers, Ms. Clinton, now 34, focuses on organizations whose goals are in line with the work of the family’s philanthropic organization, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Organizers said her star power helped sell tickets and raise money.

A cynical person might say this division of labor reflects Clinton power duo priorities with the daughter being thrown at the lower concerns. But I will move on.

And unlike her parents’ talks, Ms. Clinton’s speeches “are on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and 100 percent of the fees are remitted directly to the foundation,” said her spokesman, Kamyl Bazbaz, adding that “the majority of Chelsea’s speeches are unpaid.” The Harry Walker Agency, the firm that represents her parents’ engagements, handles Ms. Clinton’s talks on behalf of the family foundation.

And Chelsea expects no help in her fortunes from the income of the foundation with her name on it? This “defense” amounts to pointing out that she both gets paid and avoids income taxes. Neat.

Isaac Chotiner plays dumb at the New Republic:

Anyway, this and other anecdotes, as well as Chozick’s hinting at the fact that the speeches are dull, begs the big question: why on Earth are people paying so much money to hear this stuff? It’s one thing if you are listening to the likely next president or even a former president say absolutely nothing. But Chelsea?

Because they’re buying influence! Duh. Big time donors give directly to the mother and those who have less sponsor a Chelsea speech.

I don’t believe for a moment that the media is unaware of what is going on. They write up these slightly mocking stories as a whitewash.

By the way, I am not in any way suggesting that this is or should be against the law. Wherever there is power there will be influence peddling. You can’t solve this by limiting income. You solve it by limiting government, so that there isn’t as much motive to buy influence.