Classified Obamacare Documents?

Posted on April 26, 2016April 26, 2016 by Denise Simon

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, filed the subpoenas in 2013, see the announcement here. In part:

The Committee initially requested information on the CO-OP program in October 2012 and again in March 2013. A June 7, 2013 letter to Secretary Sebelius stated, “[T]his delay is unacceptable and your lack of transparency is troubling.”

The Obamacare CO-OP program used taxpayer money to loan $2 billion to companies establishing non-profit health insurance issuers. However, the Office of Management and Budget estimated the taxpayer losses for the loans at 43.2 percent. Moreover, several companies have experienced legal or financial troubles. For instance, the Vermont Health Co-op, which received a $34 million taxpayer-backed loan, was last month denied an insurance license by the state of Vermont. In letters to HHS, the Committee expressed concern that the process used to select loan recipients was flawed and lacked transparency.

****

The Obamacare co-ops are tax-funded non-profit entities that were supposed to compete with private insurance companies. In this, they have failed spectacularly. In the last couple of years, 12 of the co-ops have shut their doors, costing doctors and hospitals million of dollars in losses. This year, some experts are predicting that up to 8 of the 11 remaining co-ops will go under as well. More here from AmericanThinker.
****

IBD: Being the “most transparent administration” in history apparently doesn’t mean complying with a congressional subpoena to find out why more than half of the ObamaCare co-ops have failed.

That’s what the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is learning, at least. It has subpoenaed information relating to the 23 nonprofit co-op insurance companies that ObamaCare established with $2.5 billion in government loans.

The co-ops were supposed to provide price competition against commercial insurers, but last year many pushed for and got huge, double-digit rate hikes. Even so, more than half of the 23 set up have failed already, and it’s likely that eight more will collapse this year.

Given that taxpayers are on the hook for billions in loans that might never get repaid, it is only fitting that Congress should find out what went wrong and why.

But instead of providing answers, the Obama administration is stonewalling.

Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said at a hearing this week, “Health and Human Services has not provided any valid legal reason for withholding information from this committee.”

The committee demanded documents back in November that would shed light on how the administration picked these co-ops, how much money has been spent and what plans the administration has to get federal loan money back from failed co-ops.

Chaffetz says that Obama officials merely “assert that if certain information was released publicly, it could cause consumers to think twice before enrolling in co-op insurance plans.”

That makes absolutely no sense. If other co-ops are likely to fail, then consumers should be aware of it, so they can avoid having their coverage disrupted midyear, which could mean changing doctors, paying higher out-of-pocket costs and so on.

This is hardly the first time that the administration has stonewalled congressional inquiries. If anything, it seems to be the unstated policy of the Obama administration.

In addition to the ObamaCare documents, for example, the Oversight Committee is battling to get documents related to the EPA’s massively expensive water regulations, the Department of Homeland Security’s policy on airport credentialing, the massive hack of government employee records and so on.

Obama officials get away with concealing anything and everything that might prove embarrassing or controversial because the “speaking truth to power” mainstream press largely ignores the stonewalling. So the White House doesn’t suffer any consequences or feel any pressure to change.

You can bet the media’s lackadaisical attitude about government transparency will suddenly change if a Republican ends up in the White House next year. But in the meantime, we may never get a clear answer to why the Obama administration flushed $2.5 billion in taxpayer money down the drain.

Need to Know Facts on EB-5 Visa Program

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

In 1999, yes under President Bill Clinton and selling out sovereignty under a globalist agenda:

FAS: The immigrant investor visa was created in 1990 to benefit the U.S. economy through employment creation and an influx of foreign capital into the United States. The visa is also referred to as the EB-5 visa because it is the fifth employment preference immigrant visa category. The EB-5 visa provides lawful permanent residence (i.e., LPR status) to foreign nationals who invest a specified amount of capital in a new commercial enterprise in the United States and create at least 10 jobs. The foreign nationals must invest $1,000,000, or $500,000 if they invest in a rural area or an area with high unemployment (referred to as targeted employment areas or TEAs).

There are approximately 10,000 visas available annually for foreign national investors and their family members (7.1% of the worldwide employment-based visas are allotted to immigrant investors and their derivatives). In FY2015, there were 9,764 EB-5 visas used, with 93% going to investors from Asia. More specifically, 84% were granted to investors from China and 3% were granted to those from Vietnam.

In general, an individual receiving an EB-5 visa is granted conditional residence status. After approximately two years the foreign national must apply to remove the conditionality (i.e., convert to full-LPR status). If the foreign national has met the visa requirements (i.e., invested and sustained the required money and created the required jobs), the foreign national receives full LPR status. If the foreign national investor has not met the requirements or does not apply to have the conditional status removed, his or her conditional LPR status is terminated, and, generally, the foreign national is required to leave the United States, or will be placed in removal proceedings.

In 1992, Congress established the Regional Center (Pilot) Program, which created an additional pathway to LPR status through the EB-5 visa category. Regional centers are “any economic unit, public or private, which [are] involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment.” The program allows foreign national investors to pool their investment in a regional center to fund a broad range of projects within a specific geographic area. The investment requirement for regional center investors is the same as for standard EB-5 investors. As the use of EB-5 visas has grown, so has the use of the Regional Center Program. In FY2014, 97% of all EB-5 visas were issued based on investments in regional centers. Unlike the standard EB-5 visa category, which does not expire, the Regional Center Program is set to expire on September 30, 2016.

Different policy issues surrounding the EB-5 visa have been debated. Proponents of the EB-5 visa contend that providing visas to foreign investors benefits the U.S. economy, in light of the potential economic growth and job creation it can create. Others argue that the EB-5 visa allows wealthy individuals to buy their way into the United States.

In addition, some EB-5 stakeholders have voiced concerns over the delays in processing EB-5 applications and possible effects on investors and time sensitive projects. Furthermore, some have questioned whether U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) has the expertise to administer the EB-5 program, given its embedded business components. The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General (DHS OIG) has recommended that USCIS work with other federal agencies that do have such expertise, while USCIS has reported that it has taken steps internally to address this issue. USCIS has also struggled to measure the efficacy of the EB-5 category (e.g., its economic impact). USCIS methodology for reporting investments and jobs created has been called into question by both the DHS OIG and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Furthermore, some have highlighted possible fraud and threats to national security that the visa category presents. In comparison to other immigrant visas, the EB-5 visa faces additional risks of fraud that stem from its investment components. Such risks are associated with the difficulty in verifying that investors’ funds are obtained lawfully and the visa’s potential for large monetary gains, which could motivate individuals to take advantage of investors and can make the visa susceptible to the appearance of favoritism. USCIS has reported improvements in its fraud detection but also feels certain statutory limitations have restricted what it can do. Additionally, GAO believes that improved data collection by USCIS could assist in detecting fraud and keeping visa holders and regional centers accountable.

Lastly, the authority of states to designate TEAs has raised concerns. Some have pointed to the inconsistency in TEA designation practices across states and how it could allow for possible gerrymandering (i.e., all development occurs in an area that by itself would not be considered a TEA). Others contend that the current regulations allow states to determine what area fits their economic needs and allow for the accommodation of commuting patterns.

In addition to the issues discussed above, Congress may consider whether the Regional Center Program should be allowed to expire, be reauthorized, or made permanent, given its expiration on September 30, 2016. In addition, Congress may consider whether any modifications should be made to the EB-5 visa category or the Regional Center Program. Legislation has been introduced in the 114th Congress that would, among other provisions, amend the program to try to address concerns about fraud, and change the manner in which TEAs are determined. Other bills would create an EB-5-like visa category for foreign national entrepreneurs who do not have their own capital but have received capital from qualified sources, such as venture capitalists. Read more here.

Obama’s Climate Change Treaty or Accord, Skirts Senate

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

Obama’s Violating the Constitution by Not Submitting Climate Treaty to Senate

DailySignal/Senator Mike Lee and Congressman Mike Kelly:

Today at United Nations Headquarters in New York City, Secretary of State John Kerry and representatives of over 130 nations will sign the Framework Convention on Climate Change agreement that was negotiated in Paris last December.

According to President Obama, this “historic agreement” will “hold every country accountable” if they fail to meet its carbon emission targets.

The White House has also acknowledged that the agreement contains “legally binding” provisions designed to create a “long-term framework” that will force the United States and signatory countries to reduce carbon emissions for decades to come.

Despite these facts, President Obama has already announced he will not submit the Paris Climate Agreement to the Senate for advice and consent. Instead, the White House claims the signature environmental achievement of the president’s tenure is just an “international agreement” not meriting Senate attention.

If the stakes weren’t so high, this claim would be laughable on its face.

Not only was this agreement’s predecessor, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, submitted to the Senate and approved as a treaty, but when the Senate ratified that treaty, the Foreign Relations Committee specifically reported that any future emissions targets agreed to through the Convention “would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.”

President Obama has chosen to ignore this directive.

He has also chosen to ignore the State Department’s eight-factor test that is used to determine “whether any international agreement should be brought into force as a treaty or as an international agreement other than a treaty.”

Those eight factors are:

1) The extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole (the agreement’s carbon reductions will inflict costs on every American who consumes energy)

2) Whether the agreement is intended to affect state laws (the agreement will force states to meet emission targets)

3) Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress (Congress will have to appropriate money for the agreement’s Green Climate Fund)

4) Past U.S. practice as to similar agreements (the agreement’s predecessor was submitted as a treaty)

5) The preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement (Congress wants to vote on this agreement)

6) The degree of formality desired for an agreement (the agreement is a highly detailed 31-page document)

7) The proposed duration of the agreement, the need for prompt conclusion of an agreement, and the desirability of concluding a routine or short-term agreement (the agreement sets emissions targets decades in advance)

8) The general international practice as to similar agreements (there are many, but the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer is just one example)

The only reason President Obama is not sending the Paris Climate Agreement to the Senate as a treaty is that he knows the Senate would handily reject it.

This is an unacceptable breach of Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, and Congress must do something about it.

That is why we have introduced a concurrent resolution in the House and Senate expressing the sense of Congress that the Paris Climate Agreement must be submitted to the Senate as a treaty for its advice and consent.

If President Obama fails to do so, then Congress must prevent its implementation by forbidding any payments to the agreement’s “Green Climate Fund,” an international slush fund included in the Paris agreement to induce developing nations to sign the agreement.

If Congress fails to specifically prohibit taxpayer money from being spent implementing the Paris Climate Agreement, then they will be complicit in President Obama’s subversion of the Constitution.

*****

More reading on the facts of the Accord, or whatever it is called that will not receive a Senate vote:

FAS: On April 22, 2016, as many as 155 countries intend to sign the new international Paris Agreement to address greenhouse-gas-induced climate change. No international agreement to date has attracted as many signatures on the opening day of the year-long signature period. Eight nations—all perceiving themselves as particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change—plan to deposit their instruments of ratification as well.

Delegations of 195 nations adopted the Paris Agreement on December 12, 2015. It creates a structure for nations to pledge every five years to abate their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to adapt to climate change, and to cooperate to these ends, including financial and other support. A single framework to promote transparency and track progress of Parties’ efforts applies, for the first time, to all Parties—whether rich or poor. The Parties also adopted a Decision to

give effect to the Paris Agreement. Both the Decision and the Agreement (hereinafter capitalized) are intended to be legally binding on Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the new Agreement, respectively, though not all provisions within them are mandatory. Both are subsidiary to the UNFCCC, which the United States ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate (Treaty Document 102-38, October 7, 1992).

The UNFCCC entered into force in 1994.

Whether the new Paris Agreement or Decision would require Senate advice and consent depends on the content of the agreements. If either were to contain new legal obligations on the United States, it would favor requiring Senate consent to ratification. However, the United States and other Parties to the UNFCCC accepted many legally binding obligations when they ratified the Convention, including control of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, preparation to adapt to climate change, international cooperation and support, and regular reporting of emissions and actions with international review. Some have argued that the Paris Agreement does not require more of the United States than it is already obligated to do under the UNFCCC, while others have argued that it does.

Purpose and Post-2050 Balance of Emissions and Removals

The agreement states that it aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.

This purpose is stated as enhancing the implementation of the UNFCCC, including its objective to stabilize GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system. In order to achieve this “long-term temperature goal,” Parties aim to make their GHG emissions peak as soon as possible and then to reduce them rapidly “so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.” In other words, the Agreement envisions achieving net zero anthropogenic emissions. While this is arguably synonymous with the UNFCCC’s objective of stabilizing GHG atmospheric concentrations, the Agreement puts a timeframe on the objective for the first time. However, as a collective objective, the Agreement provides no means to hold an individual Party accountable if the objective were not met.

Mitigation and Adaptation

The Agreement and Decision establish a single framework under which all Parties would:

communicate every five years and undertake “ambitious” Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to mitigating GHG emissions, participate in a single “transparency framework” that includes communicating their GHG inventories and implementation of their obligations, including financial support provided or received, not less than biennially (with exceptions to a few, least developed states), and be subject to international review of their implementation.

All Parties will eventually be subject to common procedures and guidelines. However, while developed country Parties (not defined) must provide NDCs stated as economy-wide, absolute GHG reduction targets, developing country Parties are exhorted to enhance their NDCs and move toward similar targets over time, in light of their national circumstances.

Further, flexibility in the transparency framework is allowed to developing countries, depending on their capacities, regarding the scope, frequency, and detail of their reporting. The administrative Secretariat of the Convention will record the NDCs and other key reports in a public registry.

The Agreement also requires “as appropriate” that Parties prepare and communicate their plans to adapt to climate change. Adaptation communications, too, will be recorded in a public registry.

A committee will, in a facilitative and non-punitive manner, address compliance issues under the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement contains provisions for voluntary withdrawal of Parties.

The Agreement permits Parties voluntarily to participate in cooperative approaches (implicitly, emissions markets) that “involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes.”

Finance

The Agreement reiterates the obligation in the UNFCCC to provide financial support to developing country Parties to implement their mitigation efforts, calling for it to be continuous and enhanced. It uses exhortatory language to restate the collective pledge in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, of $100 billion annually by 2020, and calls for a “progression beyond previous efforts.” For the first time under the UNFCCC, the Agreement encourages all Parties to provide financial support. In addition, in the Decision, the Parties agreed to set, prior to their 2025 meeting, a new, collective, quantified goal for mobilizing financial resources of not less than $100 billion annually to assist developing country Parties. The Decision strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their current financial support—in particular to significantly increase their support for adaptation. The Agreement recognizes that “enhanced support” will allow for “higher ambition” in the actions of developing country Parties.

Five-Year Assessments

In 2023 and every five years thereafter, the Parties are to perform a “global stocktake” to review implementation of the Paris Agreement and progress toward the purpose of the Agreement and the long-term net zero anthropogenic emissions goal.

IRS: Tracking Cell Phones, Billions in Fraud Refunds

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

IRS Can Track Your Cell Phone, but Leaves Billions in Taxes Uncollected

DailySignal: While the Internal Revenue Service continues to leave uncollected tax money on the table, the agency beefed up its surveillance capabilities in a move that alarms both conservative and liberal privacy advocates.

Now some complain the IRS is acting too much like Big Brother and not enough like a traditional taxman.

Since 2006, the IRS has overseen an annual tax gap—the shortfall between taxes owed and collected—of about $385 billion, government analysts say. And according to an April report, the agency has not implemented 70 of 112 actions identified by the Government Accountability Office to close that loop.

In 2009, though, the IRS purchased a “cell-site simulator,” more commonly known as Stingray technology. And since November, the agency has been trying to buy another of the devices.

Related: House moves to Impeach IRS Comish, Speaker Ryan, not so fast

Related: IRS pays billions to illegals, fraud refunds

Like something from a spy movie, a Stingray device mimics a cellphone tower, tricking all mobile phones in an area into revealing their location and numbers. Authorities can deploy the powerful technology to tag and track an individual’s location in real time.

More advanced versions of the devices can be used to copy information stored on a cellphone and to download malware remotely.

The devices are as controversial as they are prevalent. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, 61 agencies in 23 states and the District of Columbia own the devices.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen says the IRS uses its Stingray to hunt down fraudsters and stop money laundering. The agency’s use of the devices remained a secret until an October report in the Guardian.

In a November letter to House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, Koskinen wrote that the agency’s technology “cannot be used to intercept the content of real-time communications” such as voicemails, text messages, and emails. Instead, the IRS chief said, the device has been used “to track 37 phone numbers.”

And the IRS commissioner insists his agency deploys the tech only in accordance with state and federal laws.

But during an April 13 hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the deputy IRS commissioner for service and enforcement, John Dalrymple, couldn’t say whether the IRS obtained a warrant before activating the device.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, says he finds that concerning.

With a federal budget deficit projected at $544 billion in 2016, Jordan told The Daily Signal he’d rather have the IRS focus on “their fundamental job, which is to collect revenue due to the federal Treasury.” He added:

The GAO has 112 things they suggest, recommendations for the IRS to actually deal with the $385 billion dollar tax gap. Not one of those recommendations was to purchase a second Stingray unit.

More than a misappropriation of resources, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus said, he fears the IRS could abuse the technology to monitor political groups like it did in 2013, when the agency began targeting conservative nonprofits.

“Now you have this same agency, who again for a long period of time went after people for exercising their First Amendment free speech rights, are using this technology and without a Fourth Amendment probable cause warrant,” Jordan said.

Nathan Wessler, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the technology poses a significant threat even when gathering basic information like names and numbers. In an interview with The Daily Signal, Wessler said Stingray devices could be “quite chilling on people’s right to protest.”

And there’s already a precedent for misconduct, albeit at a more local level.

Wessler points to a 2003 incident when the Miami-Dade Police Department purchased a Stingray device to monitor a protest of a conference on the Free Trade Area of the Americas. According to an expense report obtained by the ACLU, police wanted the device because they “anticipated criminal activities.”

“It’s a pretty short step from those words to being concerned about the police intentionally downloading a list of every protester who shows up at some demonstration,” Wessler said. “It’s a powerful way to know who’s there.”

The IRS Criminal Investigations Division is already one of the more elite investigative agencies. Koskinen boasts that in 2015 the division achieved a 93.2 percent conviction rate, “the highest in all of federal law enforcement.”

It’s an open question whether the agency needs Stingray technology to complete its mission.

The IRS did not respond to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment made by emails and phone calls.

Paul Larkin argues that the nature of IRS investigations makes real-time intelligence irrelevant. Larkin, senior legal research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that IRS agents are following a paper trail to investigate previous crimes:

There is no good reason the IRS would ever need real-time data information. The crimes that the IRS investigates all occurred in the past. They’re investigating fraud against the government that’s already happened. They don’t have crimes in progress like a burglary.

But if the IRS ever needed to track a suspect in the moment, Larkin said, there’s a practical solution—teamwork. He explains that there’s “no legal hurdle” that prohibits the IRS from teaming up, for instance, with the Department of Justice and borrowing its Stingray technology.

Jordan says he isn’t ready to accept that the IRS ever needs access to the device.

“Really, should the IRS have this and be using this at all?” the Ohio Republican said. “I tend to think you’d be better off with this technology not being in their hands.”

******

The 23-page report is actually quite readable, and worth looking at if you’ve been a victim of identity theft or refund fraud, you’re a tax preparer, or you’re interested in the future of how Americans file our taxes.

The IRS paid out $3.1 billion in refunds to scammers last year. We’ve discussed in the past how this scam works: someone with basic information about a U.S. taxpayer files a return with fake information, depositing their refund in the scammer’s own account. It’s a sophisticated operation and very lucrative. Additional 5 items are here, a must read from the Consumerist.

What About Those Firms Hosting Hillary Speeches

Posted on April 21, 2016April 21, 2016 by Denise Simon

Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US gov’t interests

MSN/AP: WASHINGTON — It’s not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP’s review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton’s speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

Presidents are not generally bound by many of the ethics and conflict-of-interest regulations that apply to non-elected executive branch officials, although they are subject to laws covering related conduct, such as bribery and illegal gratuities. Clinton’s 94 paid appearances over two years on the speech circuit leave her open to scrutiny over decisions she would make in the White House or influence that may affect the interests of her speech sponsors.

Rival presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders and Republican critics have mocked Clinton over her closed-door talks to banks and investment firms, saying she is too closely aligned to Wall Street to curb its abuses. Sanders said in a speech in New York that Clinton earned an average of about $225,000 for each speech and goaded her for declining to release transcripts.

“If somebody gets paid $225,000 for a speech, it must be an unbelievably extraordinary speech,” Sanders said at an outdoor rally at Washington Square Park last week in advance of the New York primary. “I kind of think if that $225,000 speech was so extraordinary, she should release the transcripts and share it with all of us.”

Clinton said again Thursday she will release transcripts of her paid speeches to private groups or companies when other political candidates do the same. She compared such disclosures to the long-standing practice of politicians being expected to release their income tax returns, which she did far earlier and more thoroughly than Sanders in the campaign.

“Now there’s a new request to release transcripts of speeches that have been given,” Clinton said during a town hall. “When everybody agrees to do that, I will as well because I think it’s important we all abide by the same standards. So, let’s do the tax return standard first because that’s been around for a really long time.”

Clinton has said she can be trusted to spurn her donors on critical issues, noting that President Barack Obama was tough on Wall Street despite his prolific fundraising there. But her earnings of more than $21.6 million from such a wide range of interest groups could affect public confidence in her proclaimed independence.

“The problem is whether all these interests who paid her to appear before them will expect to have special access when they have an issue before the government,” said Lawrence M. Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington-based election watchdog group.

The AP review identified at least 60 firms and organizations that sponsored Clinton’s speeches and lobbied the U.S. government at some point since the start of the Obama administration. Over the same period, at least 30 also profited from government contracts. Twenty-two groups lobbied the State Department during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. They include familiar Wall Street financial houses such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., corporate giants like General Electric Co. and Verizon Communications Inc., and lesser-known entities such as the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and the Global Business Travel Association.

Clinton’s two-year speaking tour, which took place after she resigned as secretary of state, “puts her in the position of having to disavow that money is an influence on her while at the same time backing campaign reform based on the influence on money,” said Noble, a former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission. “It ends up creating the appearance of influence.”

Clinton dismissed those concerns in a town hall in Columbia, South Carolina, saying that “the argument seems to be that if you ever took money from any business of any kind, then you can’t fulfill your public responsibilities. Well, that’s just not the case.”

Clinton’s spokesman, Brian Fallon, said in a statement, “Hillary Clinton’s record shows she has consistently taken on these very same industries, and to suggest she would deviate from that at all as president is completely baseless.”

Despite months of controversy over her speeches to Wall Street patrons, Clinton’s biggest rewards came from Washington’s trade associations, the lobbying groups that push aggressively for industry interests. Trade groups paid Clinton more than $7.1 million, the review showed.

The National Association of Realtors spent $38.5 million on government contacts in 2013, the same year it paid Clinton $225,000 to appear at the group’s gathering in San Francisco. A group spokesman said Clinton was among former U.S. officials invited to share their experiences but said she was not paid as part of its lobbying activities.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents biotech and pharmaceutical firms, spent between $7 million and $8.5 million annually on lobbying since 2008, including contacts with the State Department — during Clinton’s tenure — on the agency’s biotech discussions with foreign governments. The trade group, which hosted Clinton for $335,000 at its event in San Diego in June 2014, has won more than $425,000 in federal payments since 2008 in work for the National Science Foundation and other agencies. The group did not respond to phone calls or emails for comment from AP.

The financial services and investment industry accounted for about $4.1 million of Clinton’s earnings. Its ranks included not only Wall Street powerhouses like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Corp., but also private equity and hedge funds like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. LP and Apollo Global Management LLC and foreign-owned banks such as Deutsche Bank AG and the Canada Imperial Bank of Commerce. Goldman Sachs, which gave Clinton $675,000 for three speeches in 2013, and Morgan Stanley, which paid her $225,000 for one speech the same year, both spent millions lobbying the U.S. during Clinton’s term at the State Department.

Nearly three dozen of Clinton’s benefactors spent more than $1 million annually on contacts with officials and Congress during the same year they paid her to appear at their corporate or association events, according to federal lobbying records. Many earned millions more in government contracts — indications of the regulatory and policy stances the groups might advocate during a Clinton presidency.

General Electric, which paid her $225,000 for a speech in Boca Raton, Florida, in January 2014, has the most extensive government portfolio. GE has spent between $15.1 million and $39.2 million annually on lobbying. The company has won nearly $50 million in government work since 2008, including $1.7 million from the State Department for lab equipment and data processing during Clinton’s tenure. The firm also lobbied the State Department all four years under Clinton on issues including trade and Iran sanctions.

As secretary of state, Clinton visited a GE aviation facility in Singapore and touted the State Department’s role aiding GE industrial and military deals abroad. Clinton met with GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt once about the agency’s efforts to salvage a planned business exposition in Shanghai and also talked with him by phone, according to her calendars.

A GE spokeswoman said, “GE works closely with the U.S. government and State Department, which often advocates for U.S. exporters.”

Clinton sought to defuse the issue of her Wall Street speeches during a February debate with Sanders by explaining that she “spoke to heart doctors, I spoke to the American Camping Association, I spoke to auto dealers, and, yes, I spoke to firms on Wall Street.”

Even the sponsors Clinton cited in her defense engaged in public advocacy — an indication of how many might seek favors if Clinton were elected.

The Cardiovascular Research Foundation, a fundraising group for cutting-edge heart medicine, paid Clinton $275,000 for a speech in Washington in September 2014. That same year, the organization joined other medical and health care groups in urging the Federal Drug Administration to reconsider its generic labeling rules. Foundation spokeswoman Irma Damhuis said Clinton was invited as a “recognized thought leader,” adding that “decisions on keynote speakers are made without a political agenda.”

The National Automobile Dealers Association paid Clinton $325,000 for a convention speech in New Orleans in January 2014. That same year, the trade group spent $3.2 million lobbying federal officials on taxes, automotive and trucking issues, labor and finance. A spokesman said the group’s lobbying and convention activities were separate.

The camping group also paid for lobbying in recent years, including $40,000 in 2015 on Transportation Department administrative actions, according to federal records. The group’s New York and New Jersey affiliate paid Clinton $260,000 for a March 2015 speech in Atlantic City.

Deirdre Petting, an executive with the national group, said its lobbying was separate from the affiliate’s decision to invite Clinton for the event.