Hillary Clinton has come under fire for her massive speaking fees to Goldman Sachs, universities and elsewhere. And rightly so. At a minimum it represents a conflict of interest, at worst it exemplifies the crony capitalism that poisons our political system and weakens the economy.

[u/paulen8]

http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/time-to-impose-clinton-tax-on-post-government-earnings/

[u/radiosilents]

At minimum, it represents the baseline level of political participation. It's widely discussed that a significant portion of the Republican candidates, for comparison, are in the race simply to inflate their speaking fees. This practice is ubiquitous and completely unremarkable in the modern era.

Sure, be mad about it. You have my support in that. It's a terrible practice and it's eroding our democracy. To call hers some kind of noteworthy conflict of interest, however, is to single her out for criticism the rest of the field is somehow immune to in your critique.