The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Obama's $400,000 speeches: can there be [Cash After Politics]?
Astaereth
In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
Last week President Obama made a deal with a mid-size NY investment bank to give a speech about health care for $400,000. It was difficult to even find the original news story (possibly this NY Post article) because Google is buried under thinkpiece after thinkpiece either criticizing Obama's move or criticizing the criticism, not to mention concerns/condemnations from the progressive wing of the Democratic party, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Obama's reaction was apparently to book another $400,000 event, this time a live interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin at a television advertisement event for A&E.
I want to talk about this here but I also want to look at some of the broader issues at play. Hillary Clinton took Wall Street money for speeches and that became a scandal in the 2016 election. Trump and his children are plugging jewelry and negotiating hotel construction in foreign countries using the power of the office. There are frequent concerns about Congresspeople leaving office to take cushy jobs at lobbying firms or the boards of the companies their legislation affected. On the other hand, there's been much less of a furor about the Obamas getting a $65 million advance on their memoirs. Is it just the money that's bothering people about these speaking fees, or is there something else involved? How should our political leaders behave, in and out of office, with regard to personal enrichment?
What this thread is not, as per mod orders:
-so broad that anything related to "the role of money in politics" is on-topic
-about political contributions, such as SuperPACs.
Basically, let's keep this to how politicians personally make money outside of their job or after they've retired, and what kind of standards we should hold them to in that regard.
I want to talk about this here but I also want to look at some of the broader issues at play. Hillary Clinton took Wall Street money for speeches and that became a scandal in the 2016 election. Trump and his children are plugging jewelry and negotiating hotel construction in foreign countries using the power of the office. There are frequent concerns about Congresspeople leaving office to take cushy jobs at lobbying firms or the boards of the companies their legislation affected. On the other hand, there's been much less of a furor about the Obamas getting a $65 million advance on their memoirs. Is it just the money that's bothering people about these speaking fees, or is there something else involved? How should our political leaders behave, in and out of office, with regard to personal enrichment?
What this thread is not, as per mod orders:
-so broad that anything related to "the role of money in politics" is on-topic
-about political contributions, such as SuperPACs.
Basically, let's keep this to how politicians personally make money outside of their job or after they've retired, and what kind of standards we should hold them to in that regard.
+1
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
If only politicians could be like Cincinnatus of legend: totally unwilling to take the job, but nonetheless do so with distinction and then, when Rome is saved, they go back to a life of quiet humility.
Of course, realistically, I know that is totally apocryphal but I suppose it's the same sentiment that people have when opposed to politicians making money off their fame. If only our leaders could be like the ascetic farmers of yore.
That being said, the $400,000 doesn't bother me. I saw floating around on twitter that Larry the Cable Guy charges 400 grand for appearances. If the worst yet somehow popular comedian you can possibly think of pulls 400 grand per show, then the first black president should be able to pull like 10 times that as far as I'm concerned.
I think he should just be more choosy about where he speaks and that some of his appearances need to be at charities or events open to the public, but I have no problem with him charging whatever he wants.
Kind of makes me why everyone was fixating on a few speech bookings. That's as many as 163 speech bookings, which while possible presumably would be a challenge for Pres. Obama to make in his remaining lifetime.
I feel like $65 million must be...typical for a former president (and his family), if you adjust for inflation, and consider the historical importance of the first black president along a two-term presidency. Still, it's a lot.
I guess that's why every former-American president is rich as Crassus.. It's a good argument in favor of the estate tax.
1) No, it's a massive record. Bush got 15, so did Clinton. Obama is a considerably better writer than either of them (or their ghostwriters, frankly).
2) It's for both his and Michelle's memoirs.
I know it's for the family--I was fudging for the numbers for that reason.
Didn't know it was that big a record though. But considering the sort of television, film potential the family's memoirs will have over the next few decades, not to mention the actual memoirs themselves, I guess that's...not that much.
It's not like obama is going to give a speech telling the audience to really turn the screws on poors or anything like that
Theoretically it's the old as time passive corruption argument where the rich will take care of you if you didn't screw them over when you had the chance.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It signals moral purity, which is obviously the most important possible thing you can have when it comes to politics.
I mean, I can personally think of things that Barack Obama could describe, and defend, in a speech that I myself would find repugnant by themselves, much less in the context of advocacy. I won't describe them since that's beside the point.
Even if he did say them--which he might totally do, he's probably going to be giving speeches for a few more decades, which is completely his right (separate of how much he could or should charge)--I really can't claim they are the reasons why he shouldn't be giving speeches, and being paid for them. The former president might say x and make me feel sick to my stomach, but the notion that that is the qualifier for possible censuring of expression, or even just what can be commercialized because people naturally would pay for him to speak, seems unfair.
Not that there's a financial need for it--I feel the unofficial "presidential pension", combined with profitable deals made before being elected to presidency, more than ensures a comfortable lifetstyle for the first family, even if the office of the presidency doesn't pay ungodly amounts. But yeah, there's definitely not much even a Rhode Scholar candidate can do--you'd think a professorship would be attractive and possible, but apparently not.
And it's not really a "price", since i'm pretty sure you can still ask them to come speak at an event and only cover their travel expenses, and if it's a thing they care about maybe they will. Because they are people and allowed to do what they like with their time.
I don't get what the big deal is.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If he puts a decent chunk of that money towards progressive cases and doesn't really use it to fuck over undeserving people, I really can't complain.
Edit: As an aside, I do think the rich make too much money, but that's another discussion. Given that nothing is going to happen with it under Trump and a republican Congress, I'd sooner see someone like Obama, that pushes for progressive change to get the money, than for it to go back into the hands of assholes that will turn around and fuck everyone over.
Same as it did with Clinton. It's the implication of being near people we don't like.
I also assume his speeches are at least mostly inline with his stated policy positions, so I really don't see what the big deal is. This is pretty much the expected way for former presidents/politicians to make money after they leave office.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I agree, and I emphasized the part I agree with the most. Once a President has again become a private citizen, they should have their rights fully restored, so long as they've separated themselves from the government.
This firm in particular is pretty noxious, though--after winning a 9/11 settlement against American Airlines, the partners kept the money instead of disbursing it to their dead employees' families.
Trump is a whole nother case
guy's entire presidency is about setting up the mega billions
not saying you are lying here, but
[citation needed] on that last sentence
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
In 4 to 8 years we're going to have this discussion again, but with Mr. Donald Trump. Where do we draw the line between stuff that's ok and stuff that's not ok?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
otherwise yes
They're currently being sued by some of the widows, who learned about the lawsuit after the stories came out about the settlement.
I draw the line at "is he or she the President at the time?"
I'm not a fan of Trump at all, but if he had put his businesses into a blind trust, and then picked up where he left off in 2020, that wouldn't have bothered me. Once out of office, he can sell all of the tell-all memoirs and Star Spangled Presidential Cut Steaks with Extra Ketchup he wants. It's using the power of the office for profit, while in office, that I think is a problem.
That's....kind of fucked up. And I'm a little disappointed at literally anyone who would speak at Cantor Fitzerald.
Its also a way for an ex-politician to continue to advocate for their policies and priorities after they leave office, like a reverse lobbyist.
In that way I am actively pleased that Obama is still out there fighting and advocating for what he believes in.
MWO: Adamski
Except the first statement isn't true and the second doesn't even make sense in that context because getting paid to give a speech has nothing to do with being a supposed "corporatist democrat".
How do we know that? The revolving door between the public and private sectors, especially in finance, creates the appearance of impropriety at least, and probably a lot of actual corruption. And for all the moaning about how mean evil Obama was to corporations, his administration was still not nearly hostile enough towards business interests for a lot of people, myself included.
But I'm never not going to rankle at a high profile Democrat associating with Wall Street. Even if it is in such a relatively minor capacity with virtually no possibility of quid pro quo.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Can't really get into this without an explicit discussion of fundraising. I would point to what Obama wrote in "The Audacity of Hope" about how meeting with wealthy donors changes a politician and leave it at that.
In such a context, taking money from a firm like Cantor in one's post-presidency honeymoon period makes sense.
It would be fuckin irresponsible to say fuckin no to that.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's mostly a way to brag about how big their dicks are.
These are the reasons why they are willing to spend $400k