Privacy in Politics is a sticky issue fraught with controversy, and the question of whether or not the transcripts of speeches given by Hillary Clinton to Goldman Sachs should be made public is at the forefront of this debate.
Personally, I am far more concerned with what was said in those speeches than the sex scandal of the Bill Clinton Presidency. Not that the sex scandal is any less an indication of character, but I highly doubt Bill’s affair was a payment for implementing policies that benefit free sex.
If I had to draw a line between public and private in the political life of a government elected official, I would draw it there. If the action affects policy, decision making, and/or ultimately has an affect on the American People, it should be PUBLIC knowledge. When you are elected by the people, and your salary is paid by the people, you are accountable, you guessed it, TO THE PEOPLE.
Hillary’s continued refusal to make public her speeches, raises a lot more questions than is provides answers.
I have no qualms about the fact that she gave a speech, or even that she accepted upwards of $200,000 for making it. The question is, what was so valuable about her presence there that Goldman Sachs would pay that kind of money, and how do I get on the speakers list? It’s pretty obvious she wasn’t hired as a pretty face.
The fact that she made the speeches and is now running for the highest public office in our country means she is accountable to us. We have a right to know.
No comments:
Post a Comment