Just How Wealthy Is Hillary Clinton?

If elected president, the former secretary of State would be richer than close to four out of five of her predecessors.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton smiles before speaking at the World Bank May 14, 2014 in Washington, DC. Clinton and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim joined others to speak about women's rights. 
AFP/Getty Images
Alex Seitz-Wald
See more stories about...
Alex Seitz-Wald
June 30, 2014, 1:36 p.m.

The last time Hil­lary Clin­ton ran for pres­id­ent, ques­tions about her wealth dogged her cam­paign un­til its wan­ing days, when she fi­nally re­len­ted to pres­sure to re­lease her tax re­turns not long be­fore con­ced­ing the nom­in­a­tion to Barack Obama. “It’s a pretty in­con­veni­ent time for this to come out,” Demo­crat­ic strategist Bill Car­rick com­men­ted on the oc­ca­sion.

Per­haps now, a year and half be­fore the Iowa caucuses, is a more con­veni­ent time, but Re­pub­lic­ans hope to keep the likely Demo­crat­ic front-run­ner’s wealth on the table as long as pos­sible.

“Every elec­tion cycle the Demo­crats play the class war­fare card to gin up their base and use per­son­al suc­cess to ques­tion the char­ac­ter of Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ates,” said Ry­an Wil­li­ams, who had to de­fend Mitt Rom­ney from jabs at his wealth day after day as a cam­paign spokes­man in 2012. “It is amus­ing to watch the same people who smeared Gov­ernor Rom­ney’s hard work and ac­com­plished private-sec­tor ca­reer des­per­ately spin for Hil­lary and whine about she has a right to make a liv­ing without be­ing at­tacked. There is no ques­tion that this is po­et­ic justice.”

But just how wealthy is Clin­ton in the grand scheme of Amer­ic­an pres­id­ents? While cal­cu­la­tions are in­her­ently gauzy and come with plenty of caveats, it’s reas­on­able to es­tim­ate that Clin­ton would enter the White House in around the 80th per­cent­ile in his­tor­ic­al Oval Of­fice wealth, mean­ing she’d be worth more than close to four out of five of her pre­de­cessors. That’s a big jump from her hus­band, who was among the least wealthy men to as­sume the of­fice, but rich­er than Obama.

Clin­ton’s most re­cent per­son­al fin­an­cial dis­clos­ure form, filed as she was leav­ing her post at the State De­part­ment, shows that she and her hus­band held as­sets worth between about $5.2 and $25.5 mil­lion in 2012 (the forms re­quire only broad ranges of as­sets).

That num­ber has surely grown in the past year, as Clin­ton likely earned mil­lions in a book ad­vance for her new mem­oir, and she and her hus­band can both col­lect hun­dreds of thou­sands of dol­lars for a single speech. And that doesn’t in­clude their two mul­ti­mil­lion-dol­lar homes, which are held in trusts for tax reas­ons.

No mat­ter where their ac­tu­al worth falls on that spec­trum, it’s a lot of money by any­one’s stand­ard (their in­come prob­ably puts them in the top 1 per­cent of the top 1 per­cent), but still it’s nowhere near the kind of wealth en­joyed the coun­try’s wealth­i­est former ex­ec­ut­ives.

The most com­pre­hens­ive data on pres­id­en­tial net worth comes from the fin­an­cial news web­site 24/7 Wall Street, which in 2010 used his­tor­ic­al data to ball­park the in­fla­tion-ad­jus­ted net worth of every Amer­ic­an pres­id­ent. In Feb­ru­ary of this year, they up­dated those num­bers.

George Wash­ing­ton is by far the richest pres­id­ent, thanks to his large land­hold­ings, with an es­tim­ated net worth of $525 mil­lion in today’s dol­lars, al­most doub­ling Thomas Jef­fer­son, who comes in second at $212 mil­lion. (John F. Kennedy’s fam­ily’s wealth was much lar­ger, at least a bil­lion dol­lars, but he nev­er con­trolled the fin­ances, so it’s not coun­ted here.)

Things have changed a lot since the early days of the Re­pub­lic, when every single pres­id­ent was a wealthy landown­er. In the second half of the 19th cen­tury, pres­id­ents ten­ded to be more middle-class, while the 20th cen­tury saw a mix of wealthy in­dus­tri­al­ists, heirs, and more-mod­est pub­lic ser­vants and law­yers.

24/7 Wall Street es­tim­ates the Clin­tons’ wealth at around $55 mil­lion, which puts the former pres­id­ent in the ninth po­s­i­tion, between two of the Demo­crat­ic Party’s most icon­ic (and wealth­i­est) pres­id­ents: Kennedy and Frank­lin Delano Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR’s cous­in, comes in third.

All of the wealth­i­est pres­id­ents on the list, with the ex­cep­tion of Clin­ton, in­her­ited or mar­ried in­to money. When FDR took up eco­nom­ic pop­u­lism, call­ing for a “more equit­able … dis­tri­bu­tion of na­tion­al wealth” while ac­cept­ing the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion, his pa­tri­cian peers saw him as a trait­or to his class, as Uni­versity of Texas pro­fess­or H.W. Brands wrote in his 2008 bio­graphy of the pres­id­ent.

As Clin­ton has in­art­fully tried to ex­plain, she and Bill did not in­her­it wealth, but came from re­l­at­ively mod­est means and earned money through speak­ing and writ­ing. Now, after years mon­et­iz­ing her polit­ic­al celebrity, she would be firmly in the up­per fin­an­cial ech­el­on of polit­ic­al fig­ures, but not quite at the very top.

In Con­gress, sev­er­al dozen mem­bers have net worths up to $50 mil­lion, ac­cord­ing to the Cen­ter for Re­spons­ive Polit­ics, but a hand­ful are worth hun­dreds of mil­lions. Rom­ney, the 2012 GOP nom­in­ee, re­por­ted as­sets of between $190 mil­lion and $250 mil­lion in his most re­cent fin­an­cial dis­clos­ures, far high­er than Clin­ton.

Of course, much of this rank­ing is aca­dem­ic. But one part is not: Clin­ton would be the first fe­male pres­id­ent, but also the first com­mand­er in chief whose spouse comes with sig­ni­fic­ant in­come.

Michelle Obama made more money than her hus­band dur­ing much of their re­la­tion­ship, but set her ca­reer aside as Barack Obama’s polit­ic­al star rose (in 2007 she gave up a seat on the board of a Wal-Mart sup­pli­er and the salary that came with it after her hus­band cri­ti­cized the re­tail­er).

Oth­er spouses, like Jack­ie Kennedy, have come with fam­ily money, but none have been ma­jor earners like Bill Clin­ton would be for Hil­lary. Some­times the Clin­ton fam­ily busi­ness is ac­tu­al busi­ness.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
8 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×