When Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton hits the campaign trail, she does her level best to portray herself and her ex-president husband, Bill, as ordinary, average Americans just looking out for the common folk.
For this narrative, Hillary even has even gone as far as suggesting that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2000, a claim that PolitiFact has rated mostly false.
Even if the couple had large legal bills at the time — which were Bill’s fault, considering his lies to Congress and resultant impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky scandal — there is no doubt the power couple has done well financially since then. According to tax and financial records, the Clintons have earned nearly $140 million since 2007 and paid some $43 million in taxes, putting them squarely in the “1 percent” they love to complain about.
As Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge points out:
Ever since Mitt Romney’s tax disclosure fiasco in which allegations of tax avoidance and usage of offshore tax shelters played a major part in the Democrat counter campaign, there has been great interest in the Adjusted Gross Income reported by presidential candidates. Which is why to avoid any surprises on the primary circuit, Hillary Clinton released the full data of her and Bill’s tax income going back to 2007.
So without further ado, here is the Clinton family’s adjusted gross income since 2007. The summary: $139.1 million in income since 2007, most of it thanks to speeches starting at $225,000 and going much higher.
Shill for Wall Street
In the context of her presidential campaign, what is more important than the amount of money she and Bill have earned over the past eight years is who was paying the two of them. After all, Clinton served a great deal of that time as President Obama’s secretary of state. Lists of these influence peddlers can be found here for Hillary and here for Bill.
As you will see, a large number of banks, financial institutions, Big Pharma corporations and petrochemical firms have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to these dynastic politicians just to hear them “speak.” It turns out that the biggest contributor for both Hillary and Bill was Wall Street, not Main Street.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political donations at all campaign levels, Clinton’s campaign had raised more than $47 million as of June 30; 83 percent of this amount came from large individual donors.
When she announced her campaign in June, she decried “secret” campaign money.
“We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people,” she said.
“We need justices on the Supreme Court who will protect every citizen’s right to vote, rather than every corporation’s right to buy elections,” she continued, referring to a recent high court ruling that greatly expanded corporate and union donation limits.
“If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. I want to make it easier for every citizen to vote. That’s why I proposed universal, automatic registration, and expanded early voting,” Hillary said.
Two sets of rules
If only she meant it. According to The Associated Press, she just happens to be the largest recipient of this type of money in the 2016 presidential contest.
The AP reported that just weeks after Clinton made her statement about secret money, it was discovered that the main super PAC supporting her, Priorities USA Action, accepted a $1 million donation that cannot be traced.
The report said the donation came from another pro-Clinton super PAC, Fair Share Action, whose two lone donors, Fair Share Inc. and Environment America Inc., are not required to divulge information about their donors.
“This appears to be an out-and-out laundering operation designed to keep secret from the public the original source of the funds given to the super PAC, which is required to disclose its contributors,” Fred Wertheimer, the director of one such group, the Washington-based Democracy 21, told the AP.
He suggested the Clinton campaign return the donation, but other Democratic operatives said she should keep the money.
Once again, Hillary Clinton wants to play by two sets of rules — one set for her and one set for everyone else.