Maximizing speaking fee revenue is not a morally neutral position, sylar

It's just a bad look. I love Obama but at his core he is another third way Acela David Brooks reading non-liberal.

Poor and lower middle class people are getting slaughtered in this country to the benefit of the very richest among us. And Obama was a huge disappointment in forcefully making the case for doing something about it. Showing up for a 10k per minute speech at an investment bank doesn't give me warm and fuzzies.

At THIS point, sure: knowing nothing else but the value people might place on him speaking to them, and behind some kind of nonsensical Veil of Ignorance, obviously Obama is rational to accept top dollar.

But why are we limiting our knowledge of the total effects of this and the incentives it creates?

The point of the criticism should be that, by accepting lavish amounts of money for public speaking gigs, notable politicians have created an environment where there is a clear and implicit incentives for the politicians still in office and the people still in power to do the bidding of Goldman and whoever else are funding these huge appearance fees. In fact, that's *probably* the whole point. This is a relatively cheap, effective form of lobbying if only by proxy and signaling: hey politicians, play ball with the finance community (or whoever else can afford these 6 digit speaking fees) and the gravy train is waiting for you.

Obama isn't dumb and he knows that. If he cares about the perverse incentives these kinds of arrangements creates, and portends to be virtuous and interested in stopping them, he has the power to set an example and say no and to not engage and recommend people follow his lead.

Isn't that the kind of leadership they put you on stamps for and build you monuments for? The point that Obama can earn himself an extremely comfortable living WITHOUT incentivizing undue favor to finance and the mega-wealthy is simply saying that he would be sacrificing very little to make the point. That he's a smart guy and sees the kind of incentives these arrangements create AND that he's already kinda wealthy and can build even more stores of wealth through other means but is choosing instead to take the big dollars to mug for Goldman and whoever else is suggestive that in fact, no, he's being quite hypocritical and the rhetoric about the undue influence of Wall Street in Washington is very insincere.

The whole point of "capitalism is bad" is yeah, of course Obama or someone in his position is going to accept this. It's called survival. It doesn't make it right, in fact it's a horrible thing. But this is how the institutions that control all of us are perpetuated.

I would just also add that now that the Democratic party can no longer rely on labor unions for financial support, they have to rely on somebody for financial support if they want to be viable at all. If we want a Democratic party that's less reliant on big corporations, we must bring back the ability of labor unions to compete and organize on a massive scale. Otherwise, I don't see how we get from point A to point B.

You guys talk about this 400k like it's just lighting money on fire for the group that's paying the fee. Hard to quantify the monetary value, but certainly having a much beloved former President speak at your event adds to your company's prestige bigly. Optics are another matter, but I wouldn't be too worried about quid pro quo, since it seems to me the qpq here is they give him money and he gives them a speech.

It's obviously not a quid pro quo, and I have zero concerns about Obamas integrity.

It's:

1. Politicians obviously knowing that if they play ball with monied interests they will be financially rewarded.

2. The optics of taking money from Wall Street after sending exactly one Wall Streeter to jail: a weird Russian who "stole" useless code he had written for Goldman.

I agree with 2, but dispute 1. I think those offers are just a natural consequence of being a high profile politician and have little to do with whether you played ball or didnt. I havent been politically aware very long, but I'd have to imagine that GWB played ball a lot more than Obummer, but they offer him less because he's not as popular. It wouldn't surprise me if Sanders and Warren get 100k+ speaking offers when they retire (although I dounbt Sanders would accept).

Why can't it be both? Sure, having Obama or a former President or a former Senator or a former SoS or whoever at your shindig is probably a quantifiable benefit to your image. Why can't it ALSO be a subtle way to signal to politicians that they'll be rewarded handsomely if they create a favorable regulatory environment for firms to operate in?

Only good if he pulls a jon stewart on crossfire and goes and tells them that they're killing america.

It CAN be, but I gave the GWB example above to show that it's not clear what if any correlation there is between a politician's Wall Street speaking fee and their compliance with Wall Street's desires when in office.

You'll never get to that standard of proof though. Obama's not going to write GS an email that's like "hey just a heads up, I'm not going to have my AG prosecute anyone for the financial mess, P.S. you owe me BIG TIME for the bailout, I expect speaking fees in the $400k range, your friend - BO" and it's entirely possible GS offers GOP politicians less since GOP politicians are naturally inclined to do their bidding anyway. Or inflation and recency makes recent former Presidents more appealing. Or sure, maybe they just don't want the dint of GWB's bad image on their company when they can send the signal to politicians other ways. It's hard to say.

But the whole reason why we have ethical standards, the thing you wanted to separate and divorce ("The optics of taking money from Wall Street") is so that we don't have to sit around and wait for concrete, obvious proof of a quid pro quo, that we have norms and standards which if adhered to would make the question moot.

Exhorbitant speaking fees aren't unique to politicians, though. Michael Pollen charges upwards of $50k (at least, as of about two years ago) to come talk to people, and he's has done jack **** other than write a couple books about food.

The notion that Obama was shaping his policies or making decisions on whether or not to go after bad actors in Wall Street based on how it might affect the speaking fees he could earn or who would pay those fees is ****ing ridiculous.

I know, there should be a ban on this sort of thing for Republicans. No point in worrying about Democrats. It's ridiculous to think they are corruptible.

Consider the way marketing or any form of advertising or signaling works: is the idea that you bat 1.000%? The idea is that you invest in these kinds of schemes and you can influence some portion of the audience in either direct or indirect ways. I mean when General Motors takes out an ad on CBS, they're not literally trying to convince Les Moonves to buy a Buick, right?

So: Did Obama literally sit back and put his feet up in the Oval Office and make a decision based on prospective speaking fees? Maybe not?

But on the flipside: isn't it the natural reaction for anyone in office to consider their lives after their time in office and how they'll make money? Isn't the existence of lots of money being splashed around by certain parties potentially influential in how you'll conduct yourself? And isn't that like, EXACTLY the talking point Democrats have repeated ad nauseum for a while now? That all this campaign money and K-street hiring and think tank jobs and Wingnut Welfare subsidized by wealthy right-winger benefactors and stuff is ultimately servile to big business and the wealthy and it's bad? This is just more of that.

Whether Obama specifically was influenced to do anything direct, or engaged in any kind of quid pro quo has been acknowledged by everyone, I think, as either highly unlikely or not especially material. I think the argument is that GS, etc. consciously splash around and heap piles of money on politicians after their time in office and assume that alone will tilt the scales in their direction without having to engage in anything especially dirty or illegal.

It's so obviously ridiculous but for some reason "ZOMG $400k!!" appears to be a magic number that overwhelms the liberal lizard brain.

And remember, the working theory is that Obama must help no companies while in office whatsoever, or he might be viewed favorably by people in that industry who then want to treat him like a celebrity after he leaves office and has no power whatsoever.

Also, solid strawmanning micro. Definitely a real argument that anyone here is actually making

Corporations influence peddling with journalists and authors and other 'opinion elites' with exorbitant speaking fees IS exactly the same phenomenon though. Like this is just another example of bad behavior; journalists and academics shouldn't be doing this either. You're correct it's not unique to politicians but politicians, journalists, academics, etc. should all adhere to ethical standards which preclude this sort of thing.

So now we're firmly in conspiracy theory land where whatever company paid off obama for all that opinion value he has, which will clearly be expressed via... something!

I guess if obama gives a dnc speech during the 2020 campaign where he stops mid-speech to hock the amazing investment opportunities at wherever bank, you guys can totally quote this post and prove me wrong.

What are you talking about? You mean you will take it on faith that Trump officials who get paid after leaving office weren't rewarded for services? If Scott Pruitt gets paid to speak at a Koch Bros meeting, you'll be like, "but he has no power anymore! !!"?

Forgive the analogy because it's a bit oversimplified and crude, but consider:

A guy (not Obama) takes a job as a prison guard because he needs the $ to support his family. Just so happens those are the only good jobs he can get, but they pay well and allow him to live a comfortable lifestyle.

By that guy taking the job, the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and all those other bad things are perpetuated. But the guy took the job out of a desire to survive. Is it his fault? This is how systemic institutional corruption destroys us all.

I know you didn't mean for your analogy to be a derail, but imo prison guard is an immoral job. Guard at a private prison even moreso. I'd 100% definitely be a thief before that purely on moral grounds.

Sure, but prisons still need to exist right? It's the same problem with capitalism. People do need some way of getting goods and services and competition can be good to some extent, but capitalism as it currently exists is poisonous and is killing humanity.

A new argument appears: "Let the black man make his money and you're all being racist if you don't."



https://twitter.com/samswey/status/856949233697652739

These companies pay retired politicians as a signal to current politicians. It's not a quid pro quo to Obama. So watching for Obama to display subservient behavior to GS is not expected or predicted. Watching for powerful federal officials to not enforce laws against GS or create a regulatory environment favorable to them is what you would predict, and then later to see them collect on big speaking fees. Or related, politicians who act harshly and against GS interests won't get the big paid speaking fee gigs.

Not a conspiracy, just an examination of how incentives and resources work.

Sure, but it doesn't absolve individuals, at least not those who have the ability to and have taken the time to reflect on the system, of responsibility.

Obama is still awesome. I'd just like him to have not done this and I'd like it to be prohibited.