Last week, when the Clintons released their tax returns, it came out that one of the largest fees paid to Bill Clinton came from a charitable fundraising event organized by London socialite Renu Mehta. In 2006, Mehta organized the “Fortune Forum” to encourage Britain’s super-rich to give more to charity. The event was a success, drawing Lakshmi Mittal, Michael Douglas and others, but the overhead was very high, with a third of the money raised going to pay Clinton’s speaking fee:
The event raised about $1.5 million and brought together dozens of billionaires, celebrities and activists … But success came with a steep price. Fundraising costs consumed more than half of the proceeds, with $450,000 going to Clinton as a speaking fee, one of the largest he has collected as personal income. [Link]
What’s weird about this is that Bill charged this charitable event almost double what he charged other groups in the same period, even though one of the other groups was a for-profit partnership:
Clinton’s fee for his Fortune Forum appearance dwarfed the $280,000 the former president charged for a speech earlier in the day in London sponsored by a for-profit partnership and the $280,000 he received the next day for a speech in Dublin. [Link]
The outsized speaking fee makes me wonder if this was an indirect method of contributing to the Clinton campaign. While political donations are capped at $2,300, there is no limit on how much of one’s own money (or one’s spouse’s money) can be spent. So a payment to Bill Clinton, while taxable, is exempt from campaign finance regulation, although it may serve the same purpose. This suspicion is made a bit stronger by the fact that Clinton’s appearance was arranged by one of their key fundraisers, the controversial hotelier and restauranteur Sant Singh Chatwal.
This is one of the things that makes campaign finance regulation tricky – money finds a way to a candidate when people want to give it. However, with the FEC out of action this election (it has insufficient members to constitute a quorum due to gridlock), the line between business deal and campaign gift is unlikely to be clarified any time soon.
<
p>
Clintons: Have a net worth over 100 million.
Yet, they tax everyone (especially the rich). So what will businesses do? Raise their prices, and yet, it will shaft the middle class. Obama is going to do the same thing. The U.S. is too large (population wise) of a country for big government. It seems people my age don’t seem to understand that concept.
Indeed. At a minimum, they are buying favors with not just the former president but also (potentially) the future one.
Does anyone else in the world command $450,000 for a speech? Some musicians might make that for a performance, but that’s different.
And the Supreme Court is doing its best to cut the legs from under any reform either.
Yep, despite all the fancy talk, both the dem candidates have been using bundlers to get the big money. Only McCain has become a strong advocate of public financing because he’s unable to raise any money. This is despite using it as collateral for raising private money during the primaries, which actually disqualifies him.
this is rather nauseating – although they raised quite a bit of money, it’s a shame that nearly 1/3 went to just the speaker, not to mention other overhead costs. it’s almost unbelievable that such a high-profile charity event managed to raise only about $500,000.
not that he’s a poster boy for campaign finance, but to his cerdit, mccain has been an advocate of campaign finance reform long before this particular election (though if i recall correctly, that focus of his began after he lost out on the 2000 nomination).
3 · Rahul said
That’s a bit of an overstatement, no? His wife’s got a considerable sum of money and he’s been ahead of the curve on campaign finance reform well before this run for the presidency. I like that you have a strong, well articulated position against McCain but he still deserves some of that famous Rahul fairness.
And now to derail the thread…. boy did she get caught looking at two cameras when the bulbs flashed, either that or she’s cross-eyed (in which case I apologize for drawing attention to it).
Oh, it’s famous 🙂 You’re right, he did push for the campaign finance reform law back in 2003. But ak is right when she says: but to his cerdit, mccain has been an advocate of campaign finance reform long before this particular election (though if i recall correctly, that focus of his began after he lost out on the 2000 nomination). Here’s a good article about the evolution, as the article puts it, of his positions.
I was also referring to this particular campaign where he used the promise of federal financing as collateral for loans, which makes him ineligible for private financing, but he is now arguing about technicalities to keep his options open. After all, a person’s loyalty to his positions are best illustrated by actually stick to them when it is inconvenient.
6 · Rahul said
That’s a very fair criticism and it’s why I have a huge problem with HRC (her lack of support on the turban issue with TSA despite her seemingly overt support of all things punjabi and the tenor of her campaign). However, (and this maybe a pass for HRC)if you were running for president, would you allow yourself to fight a campaign with both hands tied behind your back while the opposing candidates are making use of all the resources available. In essence doing a disservice to all the people who vote and support you. Don’t also the degrees to which people are dipping into the private funding matter: Mccain’s a choir boy compared to Bill in terms of working the campaign slush funds.
This “strong advocate of public financing” and “advocate of campaign finance reform” kinda sorta undermines himself when he breaks public financing laws that carry a five year sentence and is neck-deep in lobbyists, but why quibble?
7 · Jangali Jaanwar said
Well, if your USP is being a straight talker, it kinda puts a dent in what you claim is your most important characteristic that people should value. He falls far short of the standard he asks to be judged by (and not just on campaign financing).
As for HRC, I don’t know about her specific stance on the TSA turban issue, but her campaign has not really distinguished itself on its behavior on the issue of minorities in general, especially with a couple of incidents in February and March. They seem to have become much better about this stuff since, but the Jesse Jackson statement and the 60 minutes performance do not sit well with me.
I think he has the to charge the going rate. If they’ll pay that much, he has a right to charge that much.
this is rather nauseating – although they raised quite a bit of money, it’s a shame that nearly 1/3 went to just the speaker, not to mention other overhead costs.
That’s a very fair criticism and it’s why I have a huge problem with HRC (her lack of support on the turban issue with TSA despite her seemingly overt support of all things punjabi and the tenor of her campaign).
Clintons = sleazy bums. Rather vote for McCain than Hillary
Perhaps that was the intention all along? Non-citizens can’t make donations, but they can hire the candidate’s spouse and pay him at any level they choose.
In order for there to be an campaign finance impropriety, BC would have to transfer the money to her political committee, which hasn’t and won’t happen since he’s subject to the same $2,300 limit. Any expenditures made have to be out of her political committee and can’t be made anyone else.
So…a lot of unsubstantiated insinuations in your piece.
Oh, this is more curiousity and suspicion on my part. I tried to be very careful in the main body of the post not to point fingers.
That said, is what you’ve said legally correct? I mean, she has use of household money for campaign purposes – she recently loaned her campaign $5 million. The money that BC earns is realistically speaking, being used for the campaign. It’s not sitting in a separate account somewhere else.
err Sufyan, if you are going to quote something that I or anyone else said earlier upthread, you should probably attribute it to that person. Not that I care about credit or even think that I have anything all that special to say, I simply don’t want people to think that you and I are the same entity.
From one relative newbie to another, welcome.