Are you troubled by Hillary Clinton's speaking fees from Goldman Sachs?

  • Troubling Speaking Fees

    Hillary Clinton's high speaking fees from Goldman Sachs suggests a cozy relationship with the very institutions she promises to reign in. It is difficult to imagine that Ms. Clinton will be motivated to curb Wall Street's excess when she herself has benefited from this excess with 6-figure speaking fees. Secretary Clinton must somehow find a way to assure voters that she understands their concerns and will work on the country's behalf to reform the financial market.

  • No, being paid a fee for a professional service on a single occasion does not create a conflict of interest.

    No, I am not troubled by Hillary Clinton's speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. Speaking at an event is a professional service for which the speaker can expect to be compensated. Such compensation is not equivalent to a long-term business partnership or a similar relationship that might compromise a politician's values or integrity with regard to a political issue related to the business involved.

  • They are buying her support!

    I think Hillary Clinton shouldn't be charging huge banks like Goldman Sachs for speaking engagements because it looks like she is buying their support. As a presidential candidate, she should not being receiving money from big banks or anyone on Wall Street. It is disturbing to think she is getting money for speeches at Goldman Sachs.

  • Says One Thing, Does the Other

    Hillary receiving large amounts of money would not bother me if it did not make her a hypocrite. However, she claims that the wealthy are evil conservatives stealing from the poor, while she herself is wealthy. She needs to admit that she, like others, likes money. Money is not bad, and she knows this. Just admit it Hillary!

  • What's the big deal?

    Hillary wasn't in office nor a candidate when those speeches were made. The amount paid for them is scarcely out of line for someone of her stature. Even Larry the Plumber has received over $200,000 for a speech. That's chump change for a big corporation. Nobody expects a paid speaker to be highly critical of the event host. Why anyone thinks that remarks made in a paid speech reflect what she would do as president is beyond me. If you can command prices like that, what's wrong with taking the money? If she didn't, it would just go to the stockholders or to whoever else they could get to speak. Should Peyton Manning refund his salary because he gets a lot more than most anybody else? Silly. People are just fishing for something to use against her.

  • I am not troubled at all

    We live in a capitalistic society where one can make as much money as your ambition dictates. Hillary Clinton provided a valuable service to Goldman Sachs with her speeches, that does mean she is beholden to them for anything. She has already provided the service she was paid for so she owes them nothing else. Making appearance fees is one of the perks of being a former president or First Lady, so good for her.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.