Pay to play, the Clinton way

US President Bill Clinton (R) gives a thumbs up sign with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (L) as they took to the stage prior to addressing the people of Buffalo, New York at the Marine Midland Arena 20 January. This is the first official trip of Clinton to Buffalo and comes after his State of the Union speech to Congress. (ELECTRONIC IMAGE) AFP PHOTO/Stephen JAFFE ORG XMIT: BUF99

One thing is for sure about Hillary and Bill Clinton:  They are in this politics thing for the CA$H. For nearly four decades, they’ve developed a track record of using their governmental connections to help out people who have very recently paid them a lot of money.  Several of these deals — including some with foreign dictators and hiuman rights abusers — are detailed in the great film “Clinton Cash.”

Here’s a real blast from the past, taking you back to where the grifting all began:

The Clinton era of the 1990s is remembered as a prosperous time punctuated by a series of scandals. Today, we tend to dismiss these scandals as irrelevant because they mostly involved sex, were exaggerated by partisan Republicans and were mostly related to actions taken by Bill Clinton, who will not be on the 2016 ballot. But sweeping away all this history deprives voters of the chance to consider a largely forgotten financial scandal that directly involved Hillary Clinton during 1978 and 1979.

Under the guidance of an attorney representing Tyson Foods, Hillary Clinton made a $98,540 profit from a $1,000 initial investment in less than obill_hillary_rectne year trading commodity futures. While $98,540 may not seem like much money relative to the Clinton family’s wealth today, it exceeded Bill and Hillary’s combined annual income at the time.

When this story was revealed in the spring of 1994, Hillary Clinton’s press secretary suggested that the enormous profit was the result of the First Lady’s own research — but the Tyson-linked attorney, James Blair, admitted that he advised Clinton when to buy and sell the futures. Further, there was no evidence that Clinton had previously traded in commodity futures or knew much about the market.

Careful readers at the time also learned that Clinton’s initial trading also had a serious irregularity. Unlike stock investments, commodity futures are almost always purchased with high levels of margin, meaning that the investor is using a substantial proportion of money borrowed from the broker to control positions. Exchanges and regulators typically require investors to keep a minimum amount of cash in their futures accounts to avoid getting into a negative position if futures prices move in the wrong direction. In Hillary Clinton’s case, her $1,000 initial investment was well below the $12,000 deposit required by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for the first trades she executed. So not only did Hillary make an extraordinary profit for a novice investor, she did so without following the rules applied to less well-connected traders.

[…]jon_lovitz-devil-snl-46_2

So, what’s the big deal you ask?  Why should we care that a major industry in Arkansas helped the wife of the then-attorney general, soon-to-be-governor of Arkansas hit the jackpot?  MORE: 

[…]

The factor that makes the cattle futures scandal relevant is that Hillary Clinton received her trading advice from Tyson Food’s outside counsel. Tyson was a major agricultural producer in Arkansas and had numerous issues that Attorney General and later Governor Bill Clinton could affect.

One such issue involved enforcement of environmental regulations affecting Tyson’s chicken-processing plants. It can be costly for factory farmers to properly dispose of chicken manure, but the failure to do so can cause serious damage. This was demonstrated by an incident at the company’s Green Forest plant in northwest Arkansas. As The New York Times reported in March 1994:

In 1977, the state pollution control agency reissued the license for Tyson’s Green Forest plant on the condition that the company meet with city officials to work out a plan for treating its wastes. But the state never enforced the order, and in May 1983, the waste from the plant seeped into the town’s drinking water. Residents became ill, and 15 months later Governor Clinton declared the town a disaster area.

So it is possible to link Tyson’s support for the Clintons to water contamination, an ironic circumstance given Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Governor Rick Snyder’s handling of the Flint water crisis.

Oh, and the gains for Tyson didn’t stop there: Hillary-Clinton-hereicome

The Times also reported, “During Mr. Clinton’s tenure in Arkansas, Tyson benefited from a variety of state actions, including $9 million in government loans, the placement of company executives on important state boards and favorable decisions on environmental issues.”

Tyson appears to have obtained these results for what looks like a bribe delivered though Hillary Clinton’s commodities account. To quote the company’s former chairman: politics is “a series of unsentimental transactions between those who need votes and those who have money.”

This perspective should provide cause for concern today, since Hillary Clinton made $2.9 million in speaking fees from large financial institutions between 2013 and 2015. That total includes $675,000 from the much reviled Goldman Sachs. One is left to wonder whether Goldman and the other financial industry behemoths stand to gain any transactional benefits for their money.

While paid speech-making is not illegal, bribery is. Tyson might have simply made a campaign contribution to Bill Clinton back then, but that would have violated limits then in effect. Instead, Bill and Hillary pushed — and seemingly broke — ethical and legal limits to get the cash they needed.

1 thought on “Pay to play, the Clinton way

  1. In the early 00’s I attended some investment accounting and other seminars put on by Mike Gaisor in NYC. This exact subject came up as part of some of the discussion topics. He had several stories like this on many people, so I think he enjoyed researching the scummy side of investing.

    What he noted, and that the story above leaves out is, as a novice mind you, she was able to almost perfectly time the market at the exact high and low points to make maximum profit throughout the time frame that she was investing. Mike basically said there was no way for this to EVER happen and that people who knew the markets inside and out lost money frequently.

    How this as just one minor example of her mind set does not sway everyone that they should not vote for her really means that we can stick a fork in the USA. We are well on our way to becoming the People’s Republic of America.

Comments are closed.