I made the mistake — again — tonight of watching MSNBC. I admit I should have known better, but beg mercy because I was tired and didn’t want to get up and hunt down the remote. Hardball was on and showed the new commercial from the Sanders campaign. The commercial spoke of “politicians” collecting speaking fees — something that even Chris Matthews (who appears as pro-Sanders as any of their pundits) had to protest was patently untrue. Matthews pointed out that it is against the law for elected officials to collect speaking fees while in office.
Shortly after that, Ben Jealous — a Bernie supporter — engaged in a discussion during which the subject of the transcripts of Hillary’s speaking engagements was once again raised and during which the speculation and theories that she was “hiding something” were kicked back and forth like a soccer ball.
This time, I did get up. I found the remote, shut off the TV and sat down at my desk — to write this.
From 1979 through 1988 I worked for law firms, some of which represented (among other clients) investors. I also moonlighted as an event organizer. When organizing events, it was my job to order brochures, mail them out, deal with the event location staff, caterers — and the speakers. And here’s how that worked.
Law firms, drug companies, investment firms and other retail and service industries are only as profitable as their respective client base. They are also revolving doors — most clients stay for a few years and then find the bigger, better provider and move on. Therefore, there is a constant need to attract new clients — to engage in rainmaking. One of the ways to do this is to hold events, such as seminars, conferences, and workshops.
In order for any of these events to be profitable there needs to be a draw. Pharmaceutical companies, for example, bring in the most famous doctors or surgeons they can find; law firms bring in well-known or well-publicized judges or other leaders in their field of law. For other kinds of firms — such as investment firms — the draw is fame. They’re trying to attract rich people and rich people like famous and/or powerful people. They don’t mind paying $1,000 to attend a conference if they can brag that they met with Alan Greenspan or George Clooney — or Hillary Clinton.
Famous people don’t agree to speak at these conferences for free. None of ‘em do. That includes Donald Trump, Colin Powell, George Bush, Condi Rice, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Bono, Elton John, and the list goes on. So a fee is offered and either accepted, declined or negotiated. That fee, along with the costs of the conference itself, is passed on to attendees through the charge to attend the conference.
In short, there is no way in any dimension that any firm — investment or otherwise — is going to pay someone $225K to speak at a conference unless they can immediately recoup that money in attendees (who have to pay up front to reserve a seat).
As an organizer, I’ve attended those conferences (to work) and dealt with those speakers. Depending on how famous they are, you dealt with their team — not with them directly. They stick to their allotted time — a half hour, an hour, sometimes fifteen minutes. They shake hands afterwards, and either linger to eat at the “honors” table or simply leave. Their speeches are general — they thank the host, list their personal achievements, share their visions or experiences, break the ice with a few jokes, make some conference-related general remarks and thank everyone for listening. Done deal.
And that’s the short of it. It is neither unusual or untoward that a person who lived a life in public service — who was First Lady in Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator, Presidential candidate and Secretary of State — would be offered $225K (or even more) to speak.
Despite the innocuousness of these events I can honestly say that were I in Secretary Clinton’s shoes, I would not release those transcripts unless every candidate released the transcripts for every single speech or public talk they ever gave. And here’s why.
First and foremost, transcripts are notoriously monotonous. There are no voice inflections in the written word — except what the reader puts there. There is no speaker’s face to watch, no body language to read. There is no narrative text that would explain the ensuing dialogue. Consequently, what was a joke, or even sarcasm, can come across as dead serious.
Second, and let’s be honest, not only would Senator Sanders’ campaign folks and the GOP pounce on those pages like a pack of starving sharks on a school of minnows, but the media would tear apart every single word. Pundits would have an entire summer of words to read and spin and regurgitate and debate ad nauseum. And it’s a fairly sure bet that very little of any regurgitation would give Secretary Clinton the benefit of the doubt.
Third, there’s the not insignificant matter of baseless accusations, innuendo and the artful smear. If a professional acquaintance called me a liar, or accused me of being corrupt for no other reason — and with no proof or basis — than I, as a private citizen, spoke at an event they did not attend is it really, TRULY, up to me to prove that I’m not? Should not my accuser be required to present something other than theory to blacken my name? Especially if my accuser and I are competing for the same promotion? Or should my record speak for itself?
Fourth, one would have to suppose that among all those speeches with all those attendees at all those events there would be someone, somewhere, that is not a Clinton supporter. There would be someone, somewhere, who would approach a candidate — Cruz, Trump, Sanders — or a media outlet, or a newspaper, with a six-inch-headline-worthy scandal about her saying something untoward — like the Romney 47% disaster which occurred — and was filmed — WHILE he was running for President.
And lastly, if anyone who has followed Secretary Clinton these past 30 years — alternately hating her and liking her and admiring her grit — honestly believes she’s careless or stupid enough to risk an entire life in public service and under the public eye by saying or doing something dishonest or unethical I can only say they’re smoking something I wish I had growing in my back yard.
Senator Sanders campaign is run by two veteran hatchetmen — Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver — who are experts in their field. Those “artful smears”? They played into the 30-years-and-going GOP-lead attempted takedown of Hillary Clinton like tune accompanies lyrics. Rush Limbaugh, Fox, Beck and others have been trying to get her out of the politics game since 1992 when they spewed their outrage that she used her maiden name and broke the mold for modern-day First Ladies by taking on the issue of healthcare. That was not an accident on the part of Devine and Weaver (don’t forget, Devine watched Kerry (whose campaign he managed) get sunk by the Swiftboat propaganda). It was intentional, and it appears to be working — at least for now.
It has (at least for now) diverted the attention away from the issues that Clinton supporters are raising — the unpreparedness of Senator Sanders for the job of President compared to the credentials of Secretary Clinton. They found a vulnerable spot and used it. Unfortunately, rather than that vulnerability being rooted in issues it was rooted in casting aspersions on her honor and integrity. Certainly not in line with Senator Sanders’ assertions that he would run a clean campaign.
I know this won’t put the transcript issue to rest. I’m one voice (and a relatively insignificant one at that), but at least I’ll sleep better knowing I tried.