Ruth Marcus noted in her May 24 op-ed column, “Clinton’s unseemly speechifying,” that people from whom Hillary Clinton takes money in exchange for speeches may be seeking to curry favor with her in her future role.
How is the expectation of the person or company who pays for a speech or the position of the speaker any different from the normal relationship between a major donor and the candidate recipient in our political system, particularly after Citizens United? Is the suspicion that there is a quid pro quo any different?
Reuters reported in April that billionaire Florida auto dealer Norman Braman, a former supporter of Jeb Bush, promised that Sen. Marco Rubio “will have the resources necessary to run a first-class campaign.”
The difference between the suspicions created or perceptions of inappropriate influence when a company pays for a speech and when a billionaire funds a campaign escapes me.
Robert H. Winter, Potomac