An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The Clintons’ Finances: What’s The Big Deal?

01aaclintonssss.jpg

As someone who has been critical of the refusal of Hillary and Bill Clinton to release their tax returns, their decision to finally do so begs the question of why they waited so long, creating yet another controversy for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign that seems to have been unnecessary.

Or was it?

The big news out of the release is that the Clintons are very wealthy, earning more than $109 million in the past eight years. That doesn’t exactly enhance Mrs. Clinton’s standing among blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania, which is struggling through hard economic times like most of the rest of the U.S.

But while their wealth may diminish Mrs. Clinton’s cred as someone who claims to understand the problems of Main Street America, it is no reason to vote against her, especially since the vast majority of those millions were from the former president’s book royalties, speaking fees and business deals.

Besides which, the Clintons paid nearly $34 million in federal taxes, and the fact that they paid so much rather than try to skate as so many other wealthy folks do should be a credibility enhancer.

They also gave $10 million to charity, including $3 million last year, a very generous amount by any standard.

As it is, the tax returns are portrait of how a president saddled with legal bills stemming from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and other investigations struck it rich by parlaying his successes and failures into best selling books and lucrative speaking tours, as well as business arrangements with fat cats who in turn have contributed generously to his wife’s campaigns.

So wealthy have the Clintons become that Hillary Clinton could lend her campaign $5 million earlier this year and in all likelihood may have to borrow more as Barack Obama continues to raise substantially more money.

Beside the books and speeches, Bill Clinton’s biggest single business income is from his partnership with Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund, a Los Angeles-based investment firm founded by longtime Clinton fundraiser Ron Burkle. Between 2003 and 2006, the returns show total Yucaipa partnership income of $12.5 million. The 2007 summary provided by the campaign lists $2.75 million in partnership income.

President Clinton also has been an adviser to InfoUSA, a data company whose chief executive, Vinod Gupta, has been a major donor to Democrats and gave at least $1 million to Bill Clinton’s presidential library in Arkansas. Clinton received $400,000 in payments from the company in 2006 and 2007, according to the documents. So is this critic satisfied?

At first glance yes, but still puzzled about why the Clintons allowed this to become such a big deal.

More here and here.

  • runasim
    Gee, and you haven't yet investigated which pen they used to sign the returns.
    What are they hiding in the pen use area?
  • xerxestrust
    I have no quibble with the Clintons wealth per se, nor do I believe they somehow cannot identify with of those in poverty or the struggling middle class, since they have experienced some of those circumstances in their early lives and careers.

    I also applaud their personal charitable contributions - but it is important to note that much of the $10 million has not yet be actually distributed to charities and causes they support - but invested in a family foundation that they retain full control over. Nevertheless - those funds will ultimately benefit the public good.

    However - the sources of their wealth are fair game. Books sales are innocuous. But the incredible amount of money made through Bill Clinton's speeches give me pause. Yes - I knew on some level that he was commanding premium rates for speeches. But - Wow!

    I understand from a free market perspective that he is simply getting what the market is willing to pay for a person of his stature and talent. But I do think it is more than a little hypocritical for the Clintons to attack the "obscene" payouts of corporate executives and "obscene" profits of corporations when in essence it is those payouts and profits that enable CEOs and corporations to pay Clinton what can be reasonably construed as "obscene" rates just to hear a speech.

    Yes - it is true that some day Obama may also be able to cash in the same way. But for now that is only a possibilty he can still choose to forsake. For Clinton, it is a reality they have wholeheartedly embraced.
  • StockBoySF
    Hey there, Shaun- thanks for the great post. I agree with you (and xerxestrust) that the amount they earn in and of itself isn't a reason to beat up on them. And that they are paying their fair share of taxes (though after all the past investigations done on their financial arrangements they know that they need to remain aboveboard in their finances. I also think it's great that they've earmarked $10MM to eventually go to charities....

    xerxestrust, thanks for the point about the Clintons' being hypocritical about obscene payouts to corporate executives when that same system pays Bill for his speeches. I think this relationship will keep Hillary from taking on needed corporate reform and banking regulations. This is clearly the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" mentality among politicians which leads to bigger corruption.

    Ai am much more interested in what Bill (as a partner) did to earn all that money from Yucaipa. I'm assuming he didn't become a partner by investing any money (when he left the WH he didn't have that sort of money to invest) and with him busy writing and giving speeches (which is how he describes himself on his tax returns) I'd like to know what he contributed (as an advisor) to help Yucaipa's finances. My sense is that he lent his name and allowed himself to be affiliated with it so it would draw more investors (and strengthens Yucaipa's hand in negotiating deals). I doubt that Bill actually participated in any deals and transactions in any meaningful way. The business development that is being claimed is just very subjective....

    So even though I do have a few questions and while Bill's contribution to Yucaipa may be dubious, I'm not sure there's really any reason to dig too deep into it. I don't think he was trying to cheat anyone out of money- just trying to find another way to make money by using his name. The biggest concern I have is over the conflict of interest this will present if Hillary becomes president. Bill has earned so much money from large corporations and that puts both Clintons in the debt of these large corporations. In the US we've never had the spouse of an ex-president have a real chance of becoming president. Hillary becoming president will only enrich her friends more and those friends will only enrich the Clintons more. Those relationships are already established and there's no reason to believe they will go away after all these years.

    So my biggest concern isn't about the amount of money the Clintons earned, but whether Hillary can keep sufficient distance from her sponsors (and those sponsors run deep and are very powerful) to do what is best for the country. I would say no- I don't know of poitician who has done this. And with her husband being the ex-president, the ties are even stronger.
  • Stringbean
    What about household employees? The Clinton returns don't report a single housekeeper, cook or any household employees at all. Given the obviously busy schedules that generate this considerable income, isn't this an unusual omission?
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice/Joe Gandelman | Designed by Elegant Themes | Customized by Tyrone Steels II/Enxit Group, LLC