In what manner is this not bribery?

The university paid the former first daughter $85,000 for the short appearance, which only amounted to about an hour on campus …

“She negotiated to speak for 10 minutes, participate in a 20-minute moderated question-and-answer session and spend a half-hour posing for photos with VIPs,” said John Martellaro, a spokesman for the university.

Yes, yes, free markets and all that, people can spend their money however they like.

But seriously, in what manner is this not bribery of the daughter of the next likely President of the United States?

22 thoughts on “In what manner is this not bribery?”

  1. allegedly they bought the time of Chelsea, you know that star performer with a track record of massive success, for a third the price that Hillary was demanding – even the university balked at dropping $250,000 of tax payers money on that

  2. Because she’s a Clinton and all accusations of bribery and corruption must therefore be purely redneck wing nut republican spite ? Did I get that right ?

  3. So Much for Subtlety

    It is not even their money. The University of Missouri is a State-run university. So it is the public’s money.

    Universities are increasingly attached to the Left openly. Not in the sense that the Right has to set up its own Think Tanks because the Left is so hostile. But in the sense that rising and retired Leftist politicians often, these days, get a sinecure at some public institution to pad out the pension. Obama did of course when he rose. As did Bill Ayers. But not Henry Kissenger.

  4. The entire paying-vast-sums-to-hear-political-vermin-speak routine (in this case only a political hanger-on) is beyond my understanding. Who the fuck wants to hear any of these human rodents peddling their poisonous and self-justifying shite at all–let alone paying them vast amounts of cash to do so.

  5. SMFS, isn’t Kissinger the exception of a right-winger who did get university jobs on the way up and in retirement?

    From Wikipedia:
    “He was director of the Harvard Defense Studies Program between 1958 and 1971. He was also director of the Harvard International Seminar between 1951 and 1971.”
    “Kissinger was then [1977] appointed to Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and International Studies. He taught at Georgetown’s Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service for several years in the late 1970s.”

    OK, not perhaps as good or long-lasting academic jobs as some others, and Columbia caved in to the student activists and withdrew his job offer.

    (or was I missing a bit of sarcasm there?)

  6. Mr Ecks,

    “The entire paying-vast-sums-to-hear-political-vermin-speak routine (in this case only a political hanger-on) is beyond my understanding. Who the fuck wants to hear any of these human rodents peddling their poisonous and self-justifying shite at all–let alone paying them vast amounts of cash to do so.”

    That’s pretty much Timmy’s point (I never quite figured this out before recently). You’re not paying for the speech, you’re just doing something that looks like work to stick money in a Clinton’s pocket. It’s like the way that Lincoln didn’t bribe people to vote for the 13th Amendment, they just found themselves in nice jobs afterwards.

  7. They’re obeying the letter of the law aren’t they? Or is the spirit of the law important in this case?

  8. Biggie–they are “within the law”. And that covers a multitude of thieves.

    Stig: I get that with the Clitoons it could well be bribery. That is what they live for second to lording it over the mundanes. But that can’t explain the phenomenon in general. Why was Bottler Brown able to get £36000 a speech for the last 5 years (leaving aside the fact he was in paid, full-time employment at the same time as working his own business). Who would be interested in bribing that deflated balloon? His rates are low (that grey turd Major was getting 30,000 a go 20 years ago and I understand Bliar gets 120 grand a speech) but who comes to listen? I could understand it if all the seats in the auditorium were empty and the corruption would then be obvious but there is always an audience for this ordure. Who wants to sit there and listen to the dregs of humanity spew their shite?.

  9. But isn’t Chelsea the next in line for the throne after Hillary?

    I mean, why wouldn’t the aristocracy pay court to the heir presumptive?

  10. Chelsea was invited to speak because her mother declined the University’s invitation. Hillary declined because the University balked at her fee for speaking = $275,000.

    I think these so-called fees do not rise to the level of “bribes” because they do not (so far as anyone knows) involve tit-for-tat.

    However I do suggest that these so-called speaking fees are a creative way the Clintons have devised to launder political contributions.

    And yes, the fact that the University paid Chelsea’s fee with taxpayer money makes the whole arrangement even more sordid.

  11. BIG,

    > They’re obeying the letter of the law aren’t they? Or is the spirit of the law important in this case?

    Speaking as someone who works for a bank and therefore gets a certain amount of training on bribery law, I can assure you that it is absolutely the spirit of the law that matters.

    If I did what Chelsea did, I’d be sacked. And rightly so.

  12. Mr Ecks,

    I have no idea. Puzzles me too. All I can think is that they get a photo at the end, like at Star Trek conventions, and it’s a Veblen Goods thing.

  13. Peter MacFarlane

    Is that ghastly woman really the most likely next president of the US?

    I suppose we must accept that she is.

    Just when you thought the world couldn’t get any worse…

  14. So, can companies get around the restrictions on political funding by doing a similar thing for a Republican?

  15. Dear Mr Worstall

    I make that about $19.5 million a year, pro rata, allowing one booking per day and 4 weeks hols plus statutories, which as I understand it ordinary Americans don’t get until after decades worth of service (the hols part).

    When I were a lad at university (when all universities were real universities) we used to invite MPs to come to speak. As far as I am aware we never paid them anything, save refreshments or, if they were speaking at a dinner, a free dinner. They travelled at their own expense – alright, taxpayers’ expense.

    The young lady in question is not even a real politician. How she can justify that fee is beyond my comprehension. Then again, Obama did ‘win’ the Nobel prize for peace five mins after becoming pressie, and the EU ‘won’ it too. Buggered if I know why.

    For some reason this reminds me of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxyhttps://sites.google.com/site/h2g2theguide/Index/i/540914.

    Hope this helps.

    DP

  16. Squander Two

    But are you in fact saying that the spirit of the bribery law is codified in your workplace so that, for you, it is no longer ‘spirit’ but ‘rule’?

  17. It’s buying influence with people seen as politically powerful, and it’s a cunning way to get around campaign finance laws to funnel taxpayers’ money to these politically powerful people.

    Just flip it around and ask what the media and dems (but I repeat myself) would say if it was one of Jeb’s children.

  18. Squander Two

    No you don’t. You ignore the training, click straight through to the test and answer the stupidly easy questions like everyone else.

  19. “In what manner is this not bribery?”

    She’s a Democrat, silly rabbit. Only Republicans can do bribery.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *