I don't think it matters one way or the other whether Hillary Clinton releases her speech transcripts from those expensive events. The public already know enough. The contents of the speeches may well be damning, but even if they are completely benign, releasing them doesn't help her case at all.
Let’s do some calculations. It appears the going rate for these speeches is $225,000 per event. Let's say the speeches are 1 hour long and she stays another hour to engage the audience. Say it takes 24 hours to write the speech, and add 24 hours for travel. 1+1+24+24=50, so she worked for about 50 hours for the money.
$225,000/50 hr = $4500/hr
This is calculated with the assumption that she prepares a brand new talk from scratch for every event. If she recycles a speech, like most politicians do,the pay rate would almost double, or about 300X average pay rate of firefighters.
Now, one could argue that Hillary Clinton is a remarkable woman whose time is worth 1000 times of someone making minimal wage, and that could be a viable argument. Let us explore that.
There are two possible scenarios: Hillary thinks her time is that much more valuable than others, or she thinks it's not worth that much money and she duped the bankers, over and over again. But the thing is either of the cases reflect a bad character.
Value system is a tricky thing. How much should a speech cost? I guess that depends on what you could gain from the experience. A speech is not a surgery, not a anti-cancer treatment, not a trip to space. The most one could expect rom a speech is knowledge. So how much does first class knowledge cost in this country? according to AAUP’s 2013 survey, Columbia University pays their tenured professors the highest, at $212,300 a year. So after working 80 hours a week for decades to attain the highest academic positions in the world, and entire year of lectures is worth less that one of Hillary’s speeches. Can we assume that no matter what she talks about, the contents cannot be worth that kind of money? And a pragmatist as she is, there is no way she didn't know what they offered is a hundred times more than she should accept?
If some one wants to buy my house for 10 million dollars, I would suspect it is a scam or there is a gold mine under my house. If some one offers me 100 times my current salary to do exactly what I am doing now, I would be suspicious of criminal activities. Parents tell their preschoolers to beware of strangers wanting to give them iPads or puppies, and their teenage daughters to beware of men giving them expensive gifts. Because when strangers give you lots of money or expensive stuff they always want something from you. If you don't find out what they want before accepting the gift, by the time they ask for the favor you could be in too deep to say no. Did Hillary not have this common sense?
“But it’s not a gift! She earned the money with her speech!” One could argue tirelessly, “ And it's not her fault they offered so much!” Which brings us back to the contents of the speech. If there were classified information or promised favors, then her reputation is over. If she just made fun of us poor peasants, her reputation is also over. But if she gave a normal speech like the ones she would give in a university for far less payment, then whatever extra money the bankers paid was basically a hidden gift. A smart politician should not be enticed by such a dangerous gift.
Now let’s go back to the unlikely scenario that the bankers were duped. She took all that money, offered them a paltry speech, and did not give them anything they wanted. Nada. She thumbed her nose at those Wall Street sharks. That would feel probably feel really good, but then I don't see her as a modern Robin Hood. Except if she fooled one banker, the others would not keep on coming back for more.
Ultimately it comes down to bad judgement and value system. When someone offers you a shitload of money for something you don't think is worth that much money, you should always say no, if you don't want to be used or to take advantage of people. This is basic decency in my opinion, and it is what I teach my child. Not illegal is not enough.
There is a famous Chinese saying: "don't touch your hat while standing under other people’s plum trees, and don't tie your shoelaces in other people’s melon patch.” Because if you do those things, everyone will suspect you are stealing plums and melons. Even if you are completely innocent. Hillary’s speaking fees is like pushing an entire cart of melons through someone else’s patch. Bad judgement is the best case scenario.
