Quick, now: what is Babs missing, other than the basic ethics principle that “Everybody does it” is not a justification or an excuse for unethical conduct?
I’m thinking that there is something wrong here since a college university is or might be government funded and it would be a conflict of interest to pay for someone in government office? (as Secretary of State) Am I getting close? You gave A.M. partial credit.
Wall Street has been a big supporter of Hillary Clinton, despite her “anti-WS” policies. And money, is a form of speech. I do believe I’m still not getting the whole thing Jack, but thanks for the partial credit. I would have never made it through Organic Chem. without it.
Because she was “vague” about her candidacy, she didn’t declare her run for 2016 until mid April 2015, yet I think most thought she’d decide yes, at the last minute. So this could be looked at as illegal in the sense of bribery. Still, another political loophole.
None of the men mentioned received speaking fees while they were in office, seeking high office, or likely to seek office ever again. Thus while it might have appeared venal, greedy, or unseemly, there was nothing unethical about it. Hillary, however, has been recognized as the likely Democratic nominee for President in 2016 virtually since Obama’s election. Peddling her speeches to foreign and corporate buyers creates clear conflicts of interest and an appearance of impropriety, neither of which are present with Bill or the Bushes.
Moreover, while the men are credibly selling their positions and status as former Presidents, Hillary is not. That’s a material difference. She may be selling First Lady and Sec. of State tales, but her fees also function as under the radar political contributions and influence peddling, as well as access-buying. They also appear to, whether they are really designed that way or not. (Of course, they are intended that way.)
Taking $250,000 from tuition-funded institutions–which neither Bushes nor Bill have—while complaining about the high price of education, and taking such fees from Wall Street firms while saying she’ll be tough on Wall Street and isn’t for sale, adds hypocrisy to the mix with her in ways that don’t apply to the men.
‘Babs’, meanwhile, who is not a fool, just a partisan tool, is intentionally gender-mongering and making her followers, who trust her emanations, more ignorant.
Jack, thanks for the lesson in ethics. I am learning a lot from your blog and enjoy seeing other points of view. Makes me think a course in ethics should be required in HS or college, even if it appears not to have anything to do with one’s major……..it still can be applied to daily life.
Ethics Alarms 
Hmmm….
1. Hillary was never the President.
2. Hillary charges universities these fees while including high student debt in her class divisiveness strategy.
Partial credit so far…
Well……
Payment for Hilary Clinton speeches could be considered “campaign contributions”? (looking to the future)
Good, good…now check the tags…
I’m thinking that there is something wrong here since a college university is or might be government funded and it would be a conflict of interest to pay for someone in government office? (as Secretary of State) Am I getting close? You gave A.M. partial credit.
Yes, you get partial credit too.
Wall Street has been a big supporter of Hillary Clinton, despite her “anti-WS” policies. And money, is a form of speech. I do believe I’m still not getting the whole thing Jack, but thanks for the partial credit. I would have never made it through Organic Chem. without it.
Hillary has an obligation (ethical?) to show that she has not or will not be compromised by the big banks and big money.
Because she was “vague” about her candidacy, she didn’t declare her run for 2016 until mid April 2015, yet I think most thought she’d decide yes, at the last minute. So this could be looked at as illegal in the sense of bribery. Still, another political loophole.
OK, Jack, I’m done. Thinking Ethically is hard! No wonder no one bothers to do it.
I’m posting the answer now.
The ANSWER:
None of the men mentioned received speaking fees while they were in office, seeking high office, or likely to seek office ever again. Thus while it might have appeared venal, greedy, or unseemly, there was nothing unethical about it. Hillary, however, has been recognized as the likely Democratic nominee for President in 2016 virtually since Obama’s election. Peddling her speeches to foreign and corporate buyers creates clear conflicts of interest and an appearance of impropriety, neither of which are present with Bill or the Bushes.
Moreover, while the men are credibly selling their positions and status as former Presidents, Hillary is not. That’s a material difference. She may be selling First Lady and Sec. of State tales, but her fees also function as under the radar political contributions and influence peddling, as well as access-buying. They also appear to, whether they are really designed that way or not. (Of course, they are intended that way.)
Taking $250,000 from tuition-funded institutions–which neither Bushes nor Bill have—while complaining about the high price of education, and taking such fees from Wall Street firms while saying she’ll be tough on Wall Street and isn’t for sale, adds hypocrisy to the mix with her in ways that don’t apply to the men.
‘Babs’, meanwhile, who is not a fool, just a partisan tool, is intentionally gender-mongering and making her followers, who trust her emanations, more ignorant.
Jack, thanks for the lesson in ethics. I am learning a lot from your blog and enjoy seeing other points of view. Makes me think a course in ethics should be required in HS or college, even if it appears not to have anything to do with one’s major……..it still can be applied to daily life.