Hillary Clinton has a problem. It is one she can and ought to address.
The Problem: Appearance of Conflict of Interest and Political Corruption
In the 18 months before launching her second presidential bid, Clinton gave nearly 100 paid speeches at banks, trade associations, charitable groups and private corporations. The appearances netted her $21.7 million — and voters very little information about what she was telling top corporations as she prepared for her 2016 campaign. Link
One poll, from June, found that when informed that the Clintons had made $25 million in speaking fees since the beginning of 2014, slightly more than half of respondents said she “does not understand” the “struggles of ordinary Americans.” Another poll, from November, found that Wall Street campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton made a similar proportion of voters less likely to vote for her. Link
Secretary Clinton’s speaking fees are acts she committed voluntarily, and personally and benefited from quite handsomely. So what?
For me, these acts are indicative of poor judgment and lack of integrity. Let me explain.
I do not think it is a controversial statement to say that, at the time she gave these speeches, Secretary Clinton had every intention of running for the presidency. I surmise, from her behavior, that the appearance of conflict of interest was simply not a problem for her, stacked up against the personal and political gain to be had by making herself available to Wall Street nabobs for enormous compensation. She considered, I suspect, that she would not have to account to the non-plutocrats for what she said to the plutocrats.
Is that the sort of judgment we Democrats look for in a president? She has since said that she will work to rein in Wall Street. I see a disconnect here. Is this what passes for integrity at the highest reaches of political power, to think that one can say one thing to the rich and powerful and another to the voters she hopes to attract?
Well perhaps what she said to the bankers was mere pablum, having no substantive bearing on the affairs of state on which she hopes to lead as president. Shouldn’t the voters make that judgment? And if one answers, “Her words will be twisted” then what the hell is she doing in politics? It’s part of the job description. “Your words will be twisted by your political adversaries.”
Secretary Clinton and her advocates routinely point to her experience and proven competency as the cornerstones of her qualifications. She clearly has significant experience in government. For me, the question of competence hinges in part upon her demonstrated judgment in particular acts and her integrity with respect to the consistency and propriety of her acts over time.
Those speeches raise significant questions in my mind regarding her competence in looking out for the interests of we the people.
We are often reminded, in matters relating to political dysfunction and chicanery, “Follow the money.” Unfortunately, that is precisely what the leadership of the Democratic party has done for a generation now, in order to compete with the Republicans for campaign support in our hyper-mediated political process. This is at the heart of the rot that has occurred in our party and our country. That is the axle of the revolving door that has kept the elites in public and private power and the people out. When are we going to stop the insidious revolving door? In my estimation, the spin can’t get any more blatant or higher than this. What is to be done?
The Solution: Release the Transcripts and Debate Senator Sanders Before the New York Primary
So far, Secretary Clinton as dodged questions about her speeches to Wall Street. From the Chicago Tribune, cited above:
"I don't think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches," Joel Benenson, Clinton's pollster, told reporters Friday. But it was a voter who asked about her transcripts at a town-hall event on CNN on Wednesday [February 3, 2016].
From the same Chicago Tribune article:
Asked in the [pre-New Hampshire Primary] debate — and not for the first time — about releasing transcripts of those speeches, she said: "I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it." She added, "My view on this is, look at my record."
Secretary Clinton, looking at your record is exactly what is required. The American people have a right to know what you, a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, said to the most powerful people in the financial world. The American people, through the Democratic Party primary process, are conducting a job interview here. We have a right to know what you did in your previous job, speaking to Wall Street for substantial recompense. Your words to those interests are required to assess your qualifications for the job you seek.
For Secretary Clinton to avoid disclosure on this issue is, to my mind, of a piece with her refusal to stand on a stage with Senator Sanders and answer questions before the New York primary. Such dodging of accountability to the American people - because she might be embarrassed, or generate negative publicity, or whatever - demonstrates to me complacency and/or fear, not statesmanship and courage.
Finally, I must say that I will vote for Hillary in November if she is the Democratic nominee. But my support for her will be confined to that act alone as things stand now. I suspect there are many others who feel like I do. By, releasing the transcripts and debating Senator Sanders before the New York primary, Secretary Clinton can demonstrate her good faith and go a long way to dispel the idea that she sorely lacks in candor, judgment and integrity. In doing so, she would do enormous good toward reconciling the whole of her party to her candidacy.