We need a new understanding of the role of “first families” and various other hangers on around the presidency – and indeed other political positions. Until 1993 first ladies were wives. There were none who had any other career. Hillary Clinton gave up her law practice when her husband became president, but she had continued to practice throughout his long service as Governor of Arkansas.
It is not necessary to assume that either she or he behaved in any way improperly to think that her career benefited from his job. Let’s assume he offered no favors to her clients and she never implied that he would. Let’s assume that he did not favor judges who made marginal calls in her favor, or penalize those who found against her.
But what if some judges thought that he might? What if some judges, facing a closely balanced decision, feared that the governor might back someone to primary them if they found against her. (Judges in Arkansas are elected, and, until 2000, were elected in partisan elections, but the same concerns would have arisen, perhaps even more sharply, if the governor had appointed judges).
But even if we assume that no judges favored Hillary Clinton in any way, clients might still have hired her thinking that they would. Her law firm was very successful. But how many of those clients went to her hoping for favors from the governor or soft treatment from judges because of her role as the state’s first lady?
Michelle Obama gave up her role in hospital management when her husband was elected president. But during his service in the Senate he secured ‘earmarks’ – federal funds – targeted to her employer. No doubt the hospital did very good work, and was deserving in many senses, but the Supreme Court has found that even the appearance of corruption is a sufficient basis to regulate political speech and donations. Does the appearance of corruption not also taint politics in other ways? During her time as first lady, Obama has done excellent work highlighting health and fitness issues.
Bill Clinton’s career now is, ah, being Bill Clinton. He is paid to turn up at events and make speeches, which can be a very lucrative career, and most certainly is in his case. He speaks very well and offers important insights into world affairs and people he knows who make decisions. Being Bill Clinton is not something he can give up if his wife is elected president. He could – and probably would – stop charging for his speeches, though he did not do this while she was Secretary of State. His income from speeches rose while she held office, though his contacts from his service as president were becoming increasingly dated.
It is hard to say exactly why his income rose during this period. He made many more paid speeches than during 2008, but he probably cut back during that year because of campaigning. In 2009 his number of gigs rose, but was still down on 2007. In 2010 it was back up, and he was also charging higher fees and this continued for two more years.
Can she really stop him cashing in on her presidency? He made millions from his own.
Quentin Langley is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the University of Bedfordshire Business School as well as a freelance columnist published in the UK and all parts of the US. He blogs on social media and crisis communications at brandjacknews.com
Filed under: U.S. Politics
