Bill Clinton has become rich delivering speeches. That’s not a scandal

To the editor: There’s been a steady drumbeat about what Hillary and Bill Clinton have received for giving speeches. (“Behind a Bill Clinton speaking engagement: A $1,400 hotel phone bill and $700 dinner for two,” July 11)

No one is obligated to hire them or pay them the price they request. If you want a Clinton, you pay for a Clinton. If they ask too much, find another speaker. Obviously the people who hire them believe they are worth the money.

But in all of this reporting about the Clintons and their speeches, there is a lack of context. Ronald Reagan was paid $2 million to give two speeches in Japan shortly after he left office. (Those are 1989 dollars.) George W. Bush earns between $100,000 and $175,000 per speech.

If you want to make a scandal out of speaking fees, at least make a scandal of fees received by other highly paid speakers. Donald Trump gets about $1.5 million per speaking engagement, and for what? Advice on how to use bankruptcy courts to avoid paying your debts?

Whatever it is, if you’re going to come down on the Clintons, at least mention what the presumptive Republican nominee receives.

Mark Rice, Palm Springs

..

To the editor: The reason that Goldman Sachs and community colleges paid Bill Clinton so much to speak at their venues is the same reason that owners and managers of top boxers, ball clubs and studios pay so much to their fighters, players and movie stars: These are the people who fill seats.

It’s called meeting the demand and sharing the wealth, and it does not need to be excused. No one is being cheated.

But you can make it seem that way by drawing attention to the fee and the demands without a word about the bottom line: the net receipts to the house.

But that too is all right. You’ve just given Bill Clinton a boost in his asking price. His agent will be delighted.

Jules Brenner, Hollywood

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook