Given the column today on Hunter Biden, another story stood out in the morning the mix. Barron’s is reporting that Chelsea Clinton raked in $9 million in compensation since 2011 from various corporations by serving on corporate boards. While Chelsea Clinton has not had the record of personal wreckage of Hunter Biden, one could legitimately ask why corporations like IAC/InterActiveCorp (with brands like Tinder, Angie’s List, and Home Adviser) are so eager to have her on the board other than her connection to her still powerful parents.
Clinton was widely panned for her stint at NBC news as a “special correspondent,” a position that journalists derided as a special deal by NBC for her parents.
The issue of such influence peddling and connections can be complex with the children of powerful politicians. The problem with Hunter Biden is that he clearly sought to capitalize on such influence peddling in contracts like the one with Burisma. However, it is also fair for children like Clinton to object that they cannot escape the connection and whatever they achieve is viewed through the lens of suspicion. I was a critic of NBC’s hiring of Clinton at $600,000 a year, who was heavily criticized for her skills and performance. However, Clinton has done more than Biden in writing books, working with Clinton funded charities, and other pursuits. While we can have legitimate concerns over influence peddling, it is also unreasonable to expect the children of powerful politicians to go into self-imposed exile.
Having said that, I remain skeptical over the level of corporate compensation for Chelsea Clinton on these boards as based solely on her own accomplishments. There remains a type of American aristocracy evident in such positions and influence.
109 thoughts on “Chelsea Clinton Rakes In $9 Million From Corporate Boards”
We now live in a world of crony capitalism.
“We now live in a world of crony capitalism.”
Only if “now” can be meant to extend back to Jimmy Carter’s lucrative turn as director of the Carter Center, financed by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
capitalism has always entailed powerful people selecting board positions based most of all on trust. the question again is do they bring anything else whatsoever to the table. usually, competent capitalism, seeks well informed leaders as board members. in theory.
I would give Jimmy a pass. He played a historic role in bringing a certain measure of peace between the Israelis and several adjacent Arab states. One might say he earned his place, in contrast to some others under discussion.
The Camp David Accords were conducted while Carter was president. It was good work, and cemented Anwar al-Sadat’s impatience with the Soviets and willingness to engage with the West to get what Egypt needed instead. They were a solid piece of statesmanship on Carter’s part, no doubt.
The Carter Center was another piece of business altogether. It dealt mostly in narratives of false equivalence between the Palestinians and Israel. I submit the 200-400 nuclear weapons in Israel’s arsenal had much more to do with making peace politically palatable for legitimate Arab governments all around Israel.
On the other hand, Carter’s condemnation of the Second and subsequent intifadas after the Oslo Accords were accepted by both the Israelis and Palestinian Authority was remarkable for its absence.
well, ha, of course i never visited it, so, yeah. merci beaucoup
Comments are closed.