Criticism of Palin’s CSU speech mounts

April 2, 2010

Increased pressure is coming from all directions, demanding that California State University officials reveal publicly the amount of money former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is being paid for an upcoming speech on the Stanislaus campus. [Orange County Register]

University officials have declined to reveal the Palin fee–reported to be in excess of $100,000–since the event is being sponsored by the school’s private, non-profit foundation. Revealing the fee would also violate the confidentiality clause in Palin’s contract.

Two activist groups–Californians Aware and the First Amendment Coalition–have both filed public record act requests for the information.

And state Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) has announced plans to hold hearings in Sacramento later this month on the Palin speaking fee and other issues of government secrecy.

Critics of the upcoming Palin appearance in June argue that cash-strapped universities should not be spending money on expensive speakers. Defenders suggest that Palin’s speech will actually help raise money for the Stanislaus campus.



  1. ForestW says:

    It might be interesting to know the top 2 or 3 university saleries and perks for each of the campuses in the state system.

    (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
  2. sycodon says:

    OK…so people voluntarily want to pay to see listen to Sara.

    CSU gets a cut of the fees and Sara gets the rest.

    In what twisted, pathetic, dumbed down world is this a problem?

    Ooooh….wait. First, this is California. Second, it is an institution of “higher learning”.

    I get it now.

    (4) 12 Total Votes - 8 up - 4 down
  3. dave55 says:

    If it was the liberal God, Micheal Moore, nobody would care how much was paid for him to speak. Personaly I don’t think public university funding should not go to any speaker but they mostly spend thier money on liberal speakers which never draw any media or activist protest. Only when they present the conservative speakers points of view. I guess freedom of speech should only work for liberals?

    (4) 30 Total Votes - 17 up - 13 down
  4. Cindy says:

    I wonder if she’ll show up with her 30/30 rifle?
    Karl Rove and Sarah Palin = dumb war monger and very very dumb war monger.

    (-1) 59 Total Votes - 29 up - 30 down
    • asthecrowphlies says:

      why is rove not in jail !!!

      (1) 49 Total Votes - 25 up - 24 down
      • tj says:

        Perhaps because he hasn’t done anything illegal.

        But I guess that doesn’t matter in the liberal tyranny.

        (5) 27 Total Votes - 16 up - 11 down
        • zaphod says:

          Perhaps because he hasn’t done anything illegal
          He was party to the Plame affair,partisan firing US attorneys,something about a partisan plot to put a Govenor in prision and some other dark activity, so he isn’t exactly innocent ,or following orders. The
          ends justify the means you suppose.
          liberal tyranny Definition update:
          an extension of the state of affairs created by and for the previous administration who were so liberal in view they thought lowering taxes for the wealthy and starting TWO wars simultaneously…. a good plan. . or an oxymoron

          (-6) 26 Total Votes - 10 up - 16 down
          • tj says:

            As I recall, in 1993 Bill Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys. One of which was Jay Stephens who was investigating Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (a democrat, btw).

            How many did Bush fire?

            Here’s a hint – it’s more than 7 but less than 9.

            Also, neither Bill Clinton’s or George Bush’s firing of the US attorneys is illegal.

            (12) 18 Total Votes - 15 up - 3 down
        • utube says:


          (-5) 13 Total Votes - 4 up - 9 down
          • tj says:

            You mean the constitution that has a 5th amendment that states that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?

            Is that the one you are talking about?

            If you have evidence present it to a US Attorney and go for it. If you don’t have evidence then you have nothing but hot air.

            (10) 14 Total Votes - 12 up - 2 down
        • utube says:


          (-11) 13 Total Votes - 1 up - 12 down
    • tj says:

      You’re pretty good at name calling but lean on any facts

      (4) 16 Total Votes - 10 up - 6 down

Comments are closed.