Glad to see it posted. I think the story does not conclude that corruption is involved, but it does suggest that Hillary needs to be clear about where she stands on the XL pipeline. It's important to Democrats.

A very important consideration for all voters - what are the quid pro quos, i.e., baggage, which would accompany HRC to the Oval Office.

It's called corruption.

It's not that she doesn't have opinions on things like Keystone XL, offshore drilling. TPP, etc;. She just doesn't want to share them with us, because her candidacy will be dead as a doornail if she shares them with us.

And it gives her supporters plausible deniability.

She's trying to be a blank slate, where voters can paint their own visions and policies on it. Unfortunately for her, that blackboard is gonna need a industrial strength eraser.

She's trying not to say anything about the TPP when before she is quoted as saying that it was "the gold standard" for trade deals. The new euphemism for filp-flopping is "evolution" so please use the proper nomenclature.

These donors will have their wish lists and their hands out. It's just reality.

We can go back to the age of Theodore Roosevelt and his trust-busting. We haven't had anyone who has done as much as he did to pioneer trust-busting in a long time. I think that Bernie Sanders might do it.

I read an interesting detail in the book Bully Pulpit by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bully-Pulpit-Roosevelt-Journalism/dp/141654786X

(Great book but long.)

One of the reasons for the prohibition of alcoholic beverages was the fact that so much government corruption emanated from the bars. That's where a lot of it was organized. Big bosses had ties to the liquor industry. Just think it is an interesting detail in history.

Giving speeches for large sums of money that go to charity can be a great thing to do. But then if you run for public office, it can look very bad for you. And those who paid the big bucks may feel they can ask you for things. It's hard to say no in some cases. It is another factor to consider. It does not mean that Hillary is a bad person. I support Sanders but I do not think that Hillary is a bad person. I think she has many good qualities.

exact opposite once in office, mere words won't suffice anymore. Is there a transcript of any of these speeches? Is she promising anything to these industries? It seems we should be able to know and if not, then that in itself is rather troubling.

It is a matter of buying proximity, of buying the ability to call up Hillary and say, remember me?

Think of what Don Siegelman is serving a prison sentence for.

Don Siegelman received no personal benefit from the donations that were at the basis of his conviction. They weren't campaign donations to him personally as I understand it. They were magnificent sums paid for a mere speech.

Why are people paying Hillary Clinton that much money to give speeches? What is so special about her that her speeches are worth that much to that bank?

They are paying for access. It's a kind of social indebtedness. It is always present in politics to some extent. But with the corporations and the kind of money they have to present to candidates, to exchange with candidates for a couple of hours of the candidates' time, what is in it for the corporations? It is simply a question we have to ask. I seriously doubt that that corporation was paying Hillary what they paid her because they wanted to hear her views on women's issues. But what do I know?

What did the bank really want in exchange for that sum of money to Hillary?

Regardless of what the bank hoped to be paying for, it does not mean that Hillary provided it, but if we are serious about ending Citizens United and the corrupt influence of corporations in our government, then we have to ask the questions that I am asking. And Hillary needs to answer them for each of her corporate donors. And I'm not singling out Hillary although I name her because she is the most prominent of the candidates from either party. But what about Jeb Bush's donors, and all the corporate and individual large donors to the other candidates, Republican and Democratic. Which of them have big wish-lists pending before our government? Which would like leases on federal lands? Which would like leniency in enforcement of regulations? (Think of the banks under George W. Bush.) These are the questions we need to ask.

But I do think it is a fatal mistake to be insisting that one will repeal Citizen's United and have a litmus tests for judges and then to be one of the most prominent beneficiaries of it. Personal paydays from huge corporations and then turning around and trying to claim that you will somehow regulate those industries and work instead for "middle class families" is perhaps one of the biggest performances in chutzpah I've seen lately. Honestly, I don't know how some people can be cool with that.

Hillary Clinton has some great attributes. She's smart and she's tough. She has major foreign policy experience. She could be leading the conversation on that instead of getting into a fight over who is more progressive (which she will lose). Why on earth is she playing the part of Elizabeth Warren? It makes less than zero sense. But it does signal that whomever is running her campaign is just as out of touch as last time. They are so tone deaf they hired the guy who did the Citibank logo to make hers just like it. Oy vey.

let down, like the Citibank logo guy. He is probably a good friend or recommended by a good friend. If she were running for president of the student council, she would win. But she is running for president of the United States, and we at this time are looking for someone who will take care, first and foremost, of the interests of ordinary Americans and not just the interests of the heads of the publicly traded companies listed on the stock market.

She would make a great president of the stock market. Those follks love her.

Just look at DU, reddit and Kos. There is a huge gap and if the message is, "Vote for her or else you stupid, racist, misogynist!" well, I don't think that will get it done.

It makes me cry like a baby.

CIBC CEO Dodig was paid over 7 million last year.
Do the CIBC speaker fee payments come with "a seat at the table" at the new president-yet-to-be nominated's cabinet meetings?

may say 'lipstick on a pig'. It paid for something other than a 'speech' or 'interview'.

Also funny.

Save a lot of bother for everyone. She wouldn't have to utter her platitudes and ingratiating tropes anew every time, and they wouldn't have to spend time listening to it.

Have a cup of soothing tea. Then vote for HILLARY! I plan to and so do millions of women. I saw the same thing happening on this site when she ran last and I am determined to call you rabid haters out.

While I don't agree necessarily with the headline of this article -- domestic-wise the are far more corrupt countries but foreign policy America is very corrupt and part of the reason why Afghanistan & Iraq ranks as top 10 most corrupt countries and the Yemen government -- also in the top 10 -- have our support -- but the facts detailed are dead on.


---

While it is true that you don’t typically have to bribe your postman to deliver the mail in the US, in many key ways America’s political and financial practices make it in absolute terms far more corrupt than the usual global South suspects. After all, the US economy is worth over $16 trillion a year, so in our corruption a lot more money changes hands.

1. Instead of having short, publicly-funded political campaigns with limited and/or free advertising (as a number of Western European countries do), the US has long political campaigns in which candidates are dunned big bucks for advertising. They are therefore forced to spend much of their time fundraising, which is to say, seeking bribes. All American politicians are basically on the take, though many are honorable people. They are forced into it by the system. House Majority leader John Boehner has actually just handed out cash on the floor of the House from the tobacco industry to other representatives.

When French President Nicolas Sarkozy was defeated in 2012, soon thereafter French police actually went into his private residence searching for an alleged $50,000 in illicit campaign contributions from the L’Oreale heiress. I thought to myself, seriously? $50,000 in a presidential campaign? Our presidential campaigns cost a billion dollars each! $50,000 is a rounding error, not a basis for police action. Why, George W. Bush took millions from arms manufacturers and then ginned up a war for them, and the police haven’t been anywhere near his house.

<snip>

2. That politicians can be bribed to reduce regulation of industries like banking (what is called “regulatory capture”) means that they will be so bribed. Billions were spent and 3,000 lobbyists employed by bankers to remove cumbersome rules in the zeroes. Thus, political corruption enabled financial corruption (in some cases legalizing it!) Without regulations and government auditing, the finance sector went wild and engaged in corrupt practices that caused the 2008 crash. Too bad the poor Afghans can’t just legislate their corruption out of existence by regularizing it, the way Wall street did.

3. That the chief villains of the 2008 meltdown (from which 90% of Americans have not recovered) have not been prosecuted is itself a form of corruption.

4. The US military budget is bloated and enormous, bigger than the military budgets of the next twelve major states. What isn’t usually realized is that perhaps half of it is spent on outsourced services, not on the military. It is corporate welfare on a cosmic scale. I’ve seen with my own eyes how officers in the military get out and then form companies to sell things to their former colleagues still on the inside.

<snip>

6. The rich are well placed to bribe our politicians to reduce taxes on the rich. This and other government policies has produced a situation where 400 American billionaires are worth $2 trillion, as much as the bottom 150 million Americans. That kind of wealth inequality hasn’t been seen in the US since the age of the robber barons in the nineteenth century. Both eras are marked by extreme corruption.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/corrupt-country-world.html

On point #4 -- oddly in an article on corruption omit the corruption on a very wide-scale from private defense contractors (a big reason why Afghanistan is a top 10 most corrupt country) but I'll just point out Hillary Clinton leads all candidates of both parties with donations from the private defense industry.

In common law, quid pro quo indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value, usually when the propriety or equity of the transaction is in question. A contract must involve consideration: that is, the exchange of something of value for something else of value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient's conduct. It may be money, goods, rights in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, objects of value, advantage, or merely a promise to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.[1]

In economics, the bribe has been described as rent. Bribery in bureaucracy has been viewed as a reason for the higher cost of production of goods and services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery

Because all politicians are conceding money=access but they keep trying to break the inevitable conclusion to the third part, that money=influence. There is no one on the planet who doesn't know the equation is a universal law, but by dodging and weaving on the last part, they can continue to get away with it. And some will kick and scream until we worship them. Blech.

She is a lefty and not inclined to follow the last administration. Plus, good for Hillary. If they are going to throw money at her for speeches then she should give them. Does not mean she will do anything but speak for the money. How did a democratic site become such a repug place???

highly respected and admired globally, and because of that many were willing to pay her to speak.

She's inspirational. People want to hear what she has to say.

May 1st -- the regulations were sent by the DOT in December. OIRA a Reagan administration creation an agency made up of Lobbyists & Economists (read up on what they have done to EPA regulations) where regulations & such have to go through them when logically the DOT -- the credible agency for oil train regulations -- logically they shouldn't have to go through them or approved the next day which would have been December (after several delays already). The reason I mention this is what are we are going to do about the long-term issue on Shale gas production? This strikes me as the larger issue on Keystone but either way it seems oil companies will win.

New Oil Train Rules Are Hit From All Sides

Ending months of uncertainty and delays, federal regulators on Friday unveiled new rules for transporting crude oil by trains, saying the measures would improve rail safety and reduce the risks of a catastrophic event.

But the rules quickly came under criticism from many sides. Lawmakers and safety advocates said the regulations did not go far enough in protecting the public, while industry representatives said some provisions would be costly and yield few safety benefits.

More than two years in the making, the rules followed a spate of derailments, explosions and oil spills around the country that highlighted the hazards of shipping large quantities of potentially explosive material on rails. The regulations introduce a new tank car standard for oil and ethanol with better protections, and mandate the use of electronically controlled brakes.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

Facing growing pressure from members of Congress as well as local and state officials, the Department of Transportation has taken repeated steps in the last two years to tackle the safety of oil trains and reassure the public. Last month, for example, it set lower speed limits for oil trains going through urban areas.

Under the new rules, the oldest, least safe tank cars would be replaced within three years with new cars that have thicker shells, higher safety shields and better fire protection. A later generation of tank cars, built since 2011 with more safety features, will have to be retrofitted or replaced by 2020.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/business/energy-environment/us-sets-new-rules-for-oil-shipments-by-rail.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Energy%20%26%20Environment%20&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

More at the link but that mention alone means they are giving oil companies several years to save up for the safer oil cans and won't have to halt transport in the meantime either but both still go boom, the older ones especially .

Or the World Affairs Council of Oregon? Or the Institute of Scrap Recycling?

Here are more organizations listed on the financial statement. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HillaryClintonFinancialDisclosure2015.pdf

World Affairs Council of Oregon;
Academic Partnerships, Dallas, TX;
Institute of Scrap Recycling, Las Vegas, NV;
Let's Talk Entertainment, San Jose, CA;
California Medical Association (via satellite);
National Council for Behavioral Healthcare, Washington, DC;
Innovation Arts and Entertainment, Austin, TX;
Cisco, Las Vegas, NV;
Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Washington, DC;
Massachusetts Conference For Women, Boston, MA;
Watermark's Silicon Valley Conference for Women, Santa Clara, CA;
American Camping Association, New York Section, Atlantic City, NJ...

There are quite a few listed. I'll leave the full transcription to someone else.

Here's the rest of my post from the other OP about this:

Well it's dusty and the books are not alphabetized so I'm obviously a "disorganized slob." There ya go.

And the more zeroes on the check, the more friendly they become.

The Chamber of Commerce -

Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM

RBC Convention Centre Winnipeg
375 York Ave.
Winnipeg, MB R3C 3J3

Global Perspectives – A Conversation with Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Tickets: $299.25 (includes processing fee and GST)

Table of 10: $2,992.50 (includes processing fee and GST)

Clinton told about 2,000 people at a Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce luncheon that the international community has to target material that is drawing radicals to the cause.

And on to Saskatoon in front of 2,000 more people for more of the same at $96 to more than $300 per person, but refused to give an opinion on the Keystone XL pipeline.