Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, May 21, 2007.

  1. Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty

    Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.

    The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus' Mondavi Center confirmed Monday.

    That amount -- which comes to about $31 a person in the audience -- included Edwards' travel and airfare, and was the highest speaking fee in the nine appearances he made before colleges and universities last year, according to his financial records.

    The earnings -- though made before Edwards was a declared Democratic presidential candidate -- could hand ammunition to his competition for the Democratic presidential nomination. The candidate -- who was then the head of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina -- chose to speak on "Poverty, the great moral issue facing America," as his $55,000 topic at UC Davis.

    That could cause both parents and students to note some irony here: UC Davis -- like the rest of the public University of California system -- will get hit this year by a 7 percent tuition increase that likely hits many of the kids his speeches are aimed at helping.

    We wondered if this is Edwards' going speaking rate, and how come he didn't offer to do it gratis for a college, particularly a public institution.

    But Martin of the Mondavi Center said that "as with any other performer, (the speaking fee) has to be negotiated, and there are a long list of considerations ... some of our speakers get more, and some get less."

    He said UC Davis' Mondavi Center paid Edwards because at the time "he wasn't a (presidential) candidate and from our point of view, he was a speaker of interest that people in the community were clearly interested in ... we feel it's our mission to present those speakers."

    Edwards spoke to at least two other California universities and colleges, both private.

    He appeared at Stanford University, where he spoke on April 26, 2006; the Palo Alto institution paid him $40,000 to deliver his talks, according to financial records. And Edwards also headlined at the former University of Judaism -- today the American Jewish University -- in Los Angeles on Jan. 30, 2006, where he debated former Speaker Newt Gingrich before about 5,000 people. According to financial documents, the candidate received a fee of $40,000 at that appearance.

    And the college and university gigs apparently added up on the bottom line for Edwards.

    In 2006, records show Edwards made more than $285,000 speaking to nine colleges and universities, charging between $16,000 and Davis' $55,000 for his talks. They ranged from the $12,000 he got on Jan. 10, 2006 from Gonzaga University Law School in Seattle to the $40,000 he banked from the University of Texas Pan American Foundation on May 22, 2006. Other schools that have paid Edwards to speak before he was a declared presidential candidate: Hunter College in New York ($35,000), Mount Union College in Ohio ($16,00) and Vanderbilt University in Nashville ($40,000).

  2. LT701


    i dont know how anyone who knows edwards record could support him - besides the fact that during his entry level political career as 1 term senator, which he spent 1/2 of running for president and vice president:

    prior to being center, he made himself rich suing doctors which hjacked up everyone's health care costs as malpractice premiums skyrocketed

    he co-sponsored the bill to greatly increase h-1b visas during the tech crash

    he voted for mfn-china, which wiped textile jobs out of his own state

    he bashes the war, but he not only voted for the war, he co-sponsored the war bill with neocon joe leiberman

    he crys about civil liberties, but voted for the patriot act, which came out of his committee

    then, after being a senator, he studies at a 'poverty center' - what was he studying - his voting record?

    after that, he works for a hedge fund

    then, he goes back to running for president, getting caught charging $400 to his campaign for a haircut

    he's as 2 faced as they come

    he's skilled at singing to juries, swaying them to a wrong decision, that's all he's got going for him
  3. LT701


    plus, edwards has tried to give every goodie possible to illegal aliens, including amnesty

    now how does that affect American poor's wages?
  4. The next time one of these university presidents is pleading poverty and how they need to jack up tuition, I hope someone remembers this. These outrageous speaker fees, paid by students who have no control over who gets them, is a form of disguised welfare for out of work liberal politicians. Sure, a few token conservatives are invited, but they routinely are attacked and shouted down by marxist goons who the university then defends.

    It's hard to imagine that Edwards could have anything to say that would be worth the cost of a beer, unless it was on the topic of how to fool gullible jurors.
  5. unlike bush, at least he did not get 6k+ americans killed and 20k+ maimed.
  6. LT701


    edwards co-sponsored the iraq war resolution that transferered the authority for war away from congress to bush

    sen byrd correctly said at the time that it was unconstitutional

    but for that resolution, bush would have been unable to go to war

    yeah, i'd blame edwards for that
  7. grazia_s


    Perhaps if some people had finished high school and invested in their educations they wouldn't have to compete for the lowest level of jobs with immigrants who are simply trying to create a better life for themselves...you should be mad at the spoiled brats in this country who feel entitled to everything no matter how little work they put in.
  8. LT701


    you're not good at connecting the dots, are you

    by supressing the wages of America's poor, they require more assistence, and that assistence is paid for with a combination of higher taxes in the middle and upper middle class, and national debt, some of it from communist china

    additionally, these new immigrants, will draw from and use more of society's infrastructure than they pay in taxes - ie a net economic loss, requireing more taxes and debt

    in other words, it's a SUBSIDY for the employer, and according to the late milton freidman, a destruction of wealth

    heritage foundation estimates that amnesty will cost 2.3 trillion - you really think we're going to 'pay as we go'? or do you think we will (try) to borrow it? how do you think that affects the value of your savings denominated in dollars?

    why does 'cheap labor' cost so much?

    ever think about that?

    on a planet of 6.7 billion people, we cannot encourage 'move to America' as the automatic and only solution to everyone who 'wants a better life'
  9. grazia_s


    You're obviously not good at connecting the dots. There are millions of Americans who CAN work but choose to stay on welfare NOT because a Mexican immigrant took their job but simply because they are lazy. Thankfully we have immigrants that are willing to work hard and pay taxes to finance those people. There are plenty of jobs out there...just look online. But guess what? Most of them require you to have a college degree and to behave a certain way. If you were to lazy to apply to schools and find a better job for yourself then that's your fault and not that of the immigrant who is willing to be paid minimum wage.
  10. I agree with LT701 in this immigration debate, but you are making some very valid points. The question is how to accommodate people from mexico or elsewhere who want to work and are needed with the need to preserve our country's sovereignty, laws and culture. The current situation is intolerable, but granting amnesty to people just because they managed to get across the border is not the solution either.
    #10     May 22, 2007