But she's broke! Didn't you hear about her book? I mean, she hardly has two gold bars to rub together, the poor woman.

This is the woman who would take profits from legally-operated companies, to use the money to her own ends, i.e., buy votes.

A thoroughly despicable creature.

Donating it back would be a nice tax write off, worth about 70,000. She will do it for the PR boost and the write off.

What they ought to be demanding is that the official who approved the expenditure and everyone north of him in the chain of command be hung from the nearest tree.

It is heartening to see students make the connection that the school had a choice in who to invite, and a choice in the amount of money to spend on that speaker, and that there was a correlation between that money and the money the students dutifully paid each semester. One has to wonder if they were poked into action by someone with a political motive. (Shoot - my rose-colored glasses musta slipped there, momentarily.)
I agree with Arty though - it's not H. Clinton's fault. It's the school's bureaucracy that needs to be tarred and feathered. H. Clinton didn't force them to choose her. More power to her - the more she is allowed to speak, wherever she can, for however much she can get, the more her true motives will show. That's all good.

" H. Clinton didn't force them to choose her. "

Maybe, maybe not. When you and your spouse have been and are powerful government figures. They very well mat have forced it. It is difficult as to whether a bribe was given or asked for or demanded from the outside.

These are my questions: Is the school selling tickets for this? If so, will they get a return of investment? If they are, it is in the best interest of the school to book her because they will most certainly recoup their cost. If it's free admission, it's definitely a waste of money that could be better spent on maintenance, which is always an issue at ANY institution.

Fayd, good point.

I found this from the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

The annual UNLV Foundation dinner, held this year at the Bellagio, doesn’t come cheap.

The dinner is $200 per seat, but donors also can buy full tables for 10 at various contribution levels, including for $20,000, $10,000, $5,000 and $3,000. The top contribution of $20,000 gets an invitation to a chef’s reception and four photo sessions with Clinton and autographed copies of her book.

So it seems UNLV pays her fee, and the UNLV Foundation gets the donations. More reading would be required to find out how the two entities are related. On the surface, it seems to be a moneymaker (can't tell what the actual $$ are, of course). But who are the actual beneficiaries?

I wonder how much of inviting Hillary at $250,000 to speak was a crony donation to her and how much was driven by hero worship.

There is a segment of the political left that worships Hillary and would happily spend $250,000 of someone else's money to hear her speak.

I can't believe Cheney, Limbaugh, North, Wolfowitz and other Republican luminaries have all been prevented from speaking on college campuses while this pant-suited Jezebel can - what's that?

They've all been paid to speak at universities across the nation? Really?

Well, that's very different then.

Never mind.

They've all been paid to speak at universities across the nation? Really? ~ Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 30, 2014 3:52 PM

Let's see what they charge:

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/11/price-political-speakers

George W. Bush: $110,000
Dick Cheney: $75,000 - $110,000
Condoleeza Rice: $100,000 - $150,000
Colin Powell: $100,000 - $150,000
Karl Rove: $25,000 - $35,000
Bill Clinton: $195,000
Hillary Clinton: $200,000

According to Forbes: "If you charge less than $10K per speech, speaker bureaus won’t be very interested in you. That’s because they take a percentage of your fee, and once we get below $10K, that percentage gets too small to be worth it."

==============================

Students expecting Hillary (or any other speaker) to refund their fees just for the joy of expressing themselves to a bunch of students are naive. Hillary agreed to give a speech for a set fee and she gave it. You want famous people to share their expertise and wisdom with you, you gotta pay for it.

Hillary's not the villain in this. The real villain in this is the school administrator who forked out a pretty exorbitant speaker fee (funded by student tuition dollars) at a time when tuition fees are expected to rise and the media is full of graduates unable to find jobs and graduating heavily in debt.

It's always easy when you're paying with someone else's money. It's not so easy when they show up and demand an accounting for how you're spending their money.

Conan: "Hillary's not the villain in this."

Well, maybe she is not THE villain, But, she is A villain; along with all the others who willingly take such high fees to speak.

They should know that they got their fame by being "public servants" (HA! that phrase has always been good for a laugh) and that if they hadn't been elected they wouldn't get so rich off others' money. So, politicians continue, even after "retiring" to take money from the voters.

That makes them ALL villains in my book. And just how much of those speaking fees do they give back? Give to charity? Give to college funds?

First, Charles, I'm no Hillary fan. I think she's a loathsome person; Daisy Buchanan incarnate.

But, she is A villain; along with all the others who willingly take such high fees to speak.

I disagree. She is free to charge whatever the market will bear for her speaking fees. As is anyone else.

So, politicians continue, even after "retiring" to take money from the voters.

She's taking money from an organization that is paying her to deliver a speech. As long as she delivers a speech, she's met her obligation.

Something is screwy when a speaker pulls down someone's yearly income just to give a talk. Honestly I don't care that Hillary speaks or Cheney (probably good to get differing viewpoints and experience sets up there in front of the students) - but I agree that the outrage needs to be directed at the school administrators for these insane fees.

Of course, I believe that school administrators are sleaze, so adjust accordingly ...

What the hell could she say worth hearing?

"I'm sorry, Senator - I don't recall..."

Conan; I disagree - this isn't really the "free marketplace" and that I believe was Amy's point.

This is someone spending money that is NOT theirs on some political hack to give a speech. When, clearly, that money could be put to better use elsewhere.

And, No, Hillary isn't alone in this. A lot of politicians do it nowadays.

It is hard to believe that there was a time when it was considered classless for Presidents and other government officials to take money for giving speeches.

Sigh, those days are long gone.