Why?`Noone ever was upset about Bill Clinton holding speeches since 2001.
150 million just for Hillary Clinton in a year would be a significant amount, yes.
150 million for Bill AND Hillary Clinton in 15 years are not that much.
10 Million from big banks for Hillary Clinton are hardly worth talking about.
And how is that a lever? A Woman with 70 million (and a similarly rich husband) won't get any more money from big banks....who were not even the biggest givers. Hillary Clinton got most speech money from other sources than big banks, so how is it a lever if they won't give her money anymore when she and her husband are rich to begin with and even if they need more can use other sources?
Added to that, them not giving her more money can only happen if she becomes president when she is in her 70's. Then she is president for at least 4 years, which does add some income too, and only after that, when she is close to dying and still has her own wealth and the wealth of her family, only then she MAYBE won't get more money by the big banks who were responsible for a little bit of her overall income.
And that is a big if, since the banks didn't donate her money. I am pretty sure that big banks value political insight of an ex president over their pride.
There really is not a lever to be found here.
People act like Clinton didn't give the banks something back for the money they gave her.
Clinton is in no way dependend on the money she received. Not even remotely.
I do not say money does not influence politics. We saw that just latly with Betsy DeVos.
I am saying that in this incident, the money Clinton got from big banks were peanuts compared to her own wealth and compared to the money her campaign mustered up.
It was also only just a fraction of the money she got for speeches.
It is a complete neglect of logic to think that clinton of all people would be a pet of wallstreet due to that.
Politicians holding such speeches and getting huge amounts for that is a very common thing. And that is because their political insight is valuable.
You can argue about outlawing that because it might lead to controversy, but even then, in this particular incident, it makes absolute no sense to say that there is any lever of big banks on clinton due to her speeches.
Not giving her more money is definitely no such lever.
I sure hope so. Warren has her own problems right now (her biggest support are rather radical leftists who will give her trouble for every time she finds an actual consensus instead of going extreme), but I think she is positioning herself as a popular oppositional leader which could lead to a succesful run in 4 years or sooner.
