Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton may not have Donald Trump's way with words, but that doesn't mean people around the world don't want to hear the potential first woman president of the United States speak. According to financial disclosure forms submitted to the Federal Elections Commission on Tuesday, Clinton made $1,475,500 on six paid speeches in 2015. The speeches included three in Canada, two in California, and one in New Jersey. She earned $315,000 for giving a speech to eBay a month before her April presidential announcement, and $260,000 for a speech to the American Camp Association – her final speech before declaring her candidacy.
The former first lady and secretary of state also earned more than $5 million in royalties from her book Hard Choices. The numbers show that Clinton earned more for speeches in 2015 than her potential Republican rival, even as she slowed her paid-speaking schedule in preparation for her campaign. Trump's financial disclosure listed only four paid speaking engagements totaling $800,000. While he declared his candidacy in mid-June, Clinton announced her run months earlier in April.
Comparative Earnings in Political Speaking
When assessing the financial landscape of political speaking engagements, it's clear that former president Bill Clinton remains a sought-after speaker. In 2015, he delivered 22 paid speeches, earning a staggering $5,250,000. These engagements came from a variety of domestic trade groups and companies, including a notable $250,000 question-and-answer session in New York for the Spanish language network Univision.
Hillary's financial disclosure also reveals that most of her personal wealth is held in a Vanguard 500 Index Fund and a separate JP Morgan Custody Account, both valued between $5 million to $25 million. This showcases a level of financial security that many politicians strive for, yet it also raises questions about the potential influence of money in politics.
Public Scrutiny of Financial Disclosures
The attention given to the Clintons' financial picture has paled in comparison to the scrutiny surrounding Trump's claimed income and net worth. Personal financial disclosures are a familiar practice for the public-sector couple after spending decades in office as president/first lady and secretary of state. However, Hillary Clinton hasn't made her personal finances a focal point of her presidential campaign like Trump has.
Critics have raised concerns regarding her past paid speaking engagements as potential conflicts of interest. For instance, her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders has pressured her to release transcripts of the paid speeches she delivered to Wall Street firms. From 2001 to 2014, Hillary made $1.8 million from just eight speeches to these banks, highlighting the lucrative nature of such engagements.
Controversial Speeches and Wall Street Ties
Some of the Clintons' speeches don't even require transcripts to stir controversy. For example, while serving as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton reportedly helped UBS, Switzerland's largest bank, broker a deal with the IRS. This favor was allegedly returned through donations to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees for Bill Clinton. Despite criticism of the Wall Street Journal reporting, this narrative continues to fuel the ongoing debate regarding Hillary's ties to Wall Street.
Hillary Clinton's recent financial disclosures also indicate paid speaking engagements before financial groups in 2015. Bill Clinton mentioned a February 2015 appearance in Nashville before the infamous UBS. Hillary Clinton disclosed speeches before the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, earning $150,000 in January 2015, and her other two speeches in Canada were co-sponsored by the bank.
Unanswered Questions and Transparency Issues
It would be great to know what was said in these speeches, but the transcripts are probably very expensive. The broader issue remains one of transparency and accountability in political finance. As political campaigns continue to evolve, the relationship between money, influence, and public service will undoubtedly remain a topic of fierce debate.
As the political landscape progresses, understanding financial disclosures will be crucial for voters. It helps inform choices and fosters a more transparent and accountable political environment.
