13 ms·

Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech?

126 points by kungfudoi 10y ago

known 10y ago
When a common man does it, it's called bribery. When a lobbyist does it, it's a great law.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  Most of the people listed in this article aren't politicians, and so can't enact any laws. And even when they are politicians, it looks like they are almost always retired politicians, who can't enact any laws. Some of them are even counter-establishment figures like satirists and even hackers (in the security sense). Hillary Clinton is a prominent example, but the article's explanation is that she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate, which seems reasonable. 'it's a great law' doesn't even make sense in your sentence. What's a great law? Bribing people? Bribing people isn't lawful.
  - allendoerfer 10y ago
    Only amateurs bribe any more. Professionals negatively bribe: They sponsor the whole show and just stop giving you money once you oppose.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      You'd be surprised. The distinction you make exists, but it's not about amateurs vs professionals, but obviously about those that can afford it (to "sponsor the whole show") and those who don't. Smaller businesses and interest groups pay their way into laws the traditional bride way all the time.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    > she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate Did she leave the part of her that was a future (at the time) presidential candidate at home?
    - chrisseaton 10y ago
      > That seems reasonable? Yes it does to me. If they invite many former secretaries of state it seems reasonable to invite this one. Who cares what she's currently working on if that's not why she was invited? The article even says she hardly mentioned her candidacy. If you're desperate to get worked up about this I can see where you would find the problem, but I think a charitable interpretation is a former secretary of state was invited to talk like many others were.
      - leereeves 10y ago
        > a charitable interpretation Indeed. If you trust her, you may not see a problem, but if you don't trust her, it's easy to argue this is disguised bribery. There's a huge difference between a former secretary of state with no prospects of power in the future and someone everyone knew would run for President in a few years.
        jomamaxx 10y ago
        It's a conflict of interest wether you trust her or not. It's a very thin line, this game. Clinton should have recused herself from all Clinton Global Initiative issues a long time ago. The massive Clinton fund with millions in donations from all sorts of political actors, mostly in nefarious places, is worse than Trump's excuses for not releasing his taxes (which he should definitely do).
        jomamaxx 10y ago
        Simple conflicts of interest revealed in a one minute Google search: A) Matt Lauer, Tom Brokaw, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakaria, Katie Couric - and many others - are all members of the press who are supposed to objectively vet candidates, and who will/have moderated political debates, were previously listed as a 'Notable Members' the Clinton Foundation. [1] B) More than 1/2 of the private entities she met with while Sec of State donated to her Fund - total over $50M. Foreign governments with whom she dealt with directly gave her fund over $170M - this is just the first 1/2 of her term. That's a serious conflict of interest. "Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she (Clinton, as Sec. State) and her top aides (again government officials) had with foundation donors." [2] C) Clinton put someone on a government board (security related) - who had no experience in the field. [3] It's a long list. [1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-matt-lauer-was-listed-as-a-notable-member-of-clinton-foundation-initiative/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-matt-lauer-was-list... [2] http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5... [3] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intel...
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "Most of the people listed in this article aren't politicians, and so can't enact any laws. " They are connected individuals who will provide introductions, lobbying and favours for the people paying for the speech. "but the article's explanation is that she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate, which seems reasonable." This is really a little naive. Hillary Clinton is running for Pres with a 70% chance of getting it, her husband is the #1 most connected man in the world. Over 50% of the private entities she met while Sec of State donated to the Clinton slush fund, to the tune of over $57 million dollars. It's a form of soft corruption - 100%. A $250K 'speaking fee' is just another way to transfer money from an org, to a political entity. A 'donation' to the Clinton Global Initiative is simply a donation to the de-facto Clinton PAC/fund. It's a form of corruption and it's not a secret. You don't donate to Clinton fund - then get an introduction/favour by Clinton by accident. I'm singling out Clinton because you did, but it's the same across the board.
pipio21 10y ago
It is not famous people, it is Hillary Clinton. As the article says, famous people get paid less than 50.000. Why does Hillary gets paid five times that amount: 1-Because the Clintons already repealed Glass–Steagall Act removing controls on the financial industry and giving them billions in the process. Even a million is nothing compared to the billions they have received and the billions they will receive from Clinton. 2-Hillary is the responsible person for US invading three new countries and creating havoc on there in the last years. This invasions correspond to a transfer of several billions to the Arms industry. Even a million is nothing compared to billions they have received and the billions they will receive from Clinton. 2-Big companies had made big business with her and Obama. TPP, TIPP will make billions for them. 3-It is the candidate elected by the establishment for obvious reasons(look above). Most newspapers support Clinton, the Democrat party supports Clinton above Sanders over what most people wanted, the big companies...
- loeber 10y ago
  No, it is famous people in general. Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, has openly written about being paid well over 100k per speech, several times a year. You can Google this. George W. Bush charges, on average, 150k per speech. A-List and B-List celebrities can easily get well in the six, occasionally in the seven figures for a public appearance of this sort. Rutgers University even paid Snooki about 32k for a commencement speech, if you remember this delightfully controversial event. You have to keep in mind that for such events, the speaker usually does not constitute the majority of expenses. Organizing meals, booking a venue, and other logistics are not cheap already. Above all, such events are mostly for purposes of showing off or building morale: organizers want attendants (usually employees) to feel good about where they work. Just like with other kinds of corporate-level showing off, there's a big budget. If anything, I think Hillary Clinton is paid surprisingly little for her public appearances (even though they do happen in great quantity).
- epistasis 10y ago
  The top section of people there is the greater than $50k section, not less than $50k.
- yyyuuu 10y ago
feklar 10y ago
This is how RMS has made a living for 2 decades. One advantage to attending these is being able to briefly talk to the speaker afterwards if they stick around, like asking RMS about his papers in the 1970s about propagation, dependencies and backtracking for building large-scale symbolic systems.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  Don't people basically see this as a willing donation to RMS / FSF? (which reminds me that I need to make my FSF donation for the year)
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  Unless it has changed recently, RMS asks for all his fees to be paid, and does not ask for a fee but makes it clear that one is appreciated and that if no speaking fee is paid, he's essentially given the speech for free. My experience is that organisations and people inviting him to speak do pay him, but in the thousands of dollars, similarly to what you'd pay a high end consultant to spend a day or two to travel and work ; not high tens of thousand and certainly not hundreds of thousands dollars!
  - dorfsmay 10y ago
    I meant "asks for all his expenses to be paid", not fees.
camillomiller 10y ago
Has anybody here ever had her/his mind changed by a great overpaid speaker? I've seen a lot of speeches in my professional life, and the ones that stuck the most were usually from non-famous low-paid speakers. The more famous and accomplished (and American, actually) the speaker is, the more the speech would steer toward a self-eulogy of the person's work achievements. And it's boring. It's a bit sad that most of the time this kind of talks are nothing more than marketing stunts for both the speakers and the conference organizers.
- tikhonj 10y ago
  I don't know about changing my mind per se, but I definitely got a new perspective on financial regulation after attending a talk by Barney Frank (famous for the Dodd-Frank bill). I don't remember the exact details now, but hearing about how he designed the regulations was very interesting, even if it was a pretty high-level description. It colored my understanding of the regulation in a way that just reading a description on Wikipedia didn't.
  - camillomiller 10y ago
    Well, I won't call him a "famous speaker", not outside of a specific field (politics and finance). By famous I mean popular in a broader sense. On the tech side of things that would mean Steve Wozniak famous, so to say (famous for his contribution on a specific field, but broadly recognized as popular).
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    Who paid the bill for that talk? I bet it wasn't Goldman & Sachs.
    - tootie 10y ago
      Look at their list of speakers. Russel Simmons, Deepak Chopra, Shaq. They invite all kinds of people. These are usually in the big offices in NY or London so most of the attendees are likely to be liberals.
throwaway287391 10y ago
Do they give a discount for speaking gigs in/around their hometown? It seems like 90+% of the "work" (and certainly the time) involved in most of the out-of-town speaking gigs would be traveling to and from them, rather than the actual speaking.
- saurik 10y ago
  I give a lot of talks, and coming up with engaging content and organizing it, often with visual aids (though I realize many of these extremely highly paid people don't use those; but I will say that having engaging material without visuals is even harder....), is enormously time consuming. The time I spend traveling is meanwhile relatively meaningless. To compare: thing of a stand up comedian, and ask yourself if 90% of their "work" is driving to the venue.
  - throwaway287391 10y ago
    Sure, but the time spent creating the talk content is amortized over all the times it's given. I doubt most of the speakers listed in the article are creating custom talks for each speaking gig they're hired for. (From the article: "A $20,000 to $200,000 check may or may not buy a customized speech.") In my experience, if I can repeat (or mostly rehash/remix) previous talk(s) I've given, the marginal cost of giving another one is ~3 hours for one in my area vs. 1-3 full days for out of town.
  - perlgeek 10y ago
    The real question is how often you can give the same talk (possibly with slight variations) in different locations, because each performance of the same speech amortizes the time cost to prepare it initially.
- zacharycohn 10y ago
  Don't sell yourself by the hour. Sell by value.
  - throwaway287391 10y ago
yyyuuu 10y ago
The tree has entered my hands, The sap has ascended my arms, The tree has grown in my breast- Downward, The branches grow out of me, like arms. Tree you are, Moss you are, You are violets with wind above them. A child - so high - you are, And all this is folly to the world.
lx0741 10y ago
It's a legal way to baksheesh them! Nicolas Sarkozy then a random french president got payed over 200000 euros to give a 15mn speech at a Qatar based event. Qatar did really well in Business with the french since then. That's how it works!
- thomasahle 10y ago
  Well this is exactly what fta is about. People also give this kind of money to famous non politicians.
  - lx0741 10y ago
    Maybe because they influence the people who vote
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Well this is exactly what fta is about No, tfa explicitly downplays this. >People also give this kind of money to famous non politicians. Only famous non-politicians have interesting and specific things to say (e.g. someone like Malcom Gladwell, etc). Few care what a politician has to say, after all they hear what they have to say all the time, in interviews, public statements, campaign speeches, etc.
    - crdoconnor 10y ago
      >Only famous non-politicians have interesting and specific things to say (e.g. someone like Malcom Gladwell, etc) Malcolm Gladwell is paid to be a presentable face for the tobacco, banking and pharma industries: http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/ http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/
      - coldtea 10y ago
        AND also sells millions of books to people who just want to read what he says.
aleem 10y ago
Networking is one of the likliest reasons. A Clinton dinner at 10k per head will attract a certain kind of audience. The speech itself may not carry as much importance as the presence of other dignitaries, industrialists, upcomers, lobbyists and so forth.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  + People get to say: 'I saw so and so' + It establishes the cred of the audience, i.e. all the bankers can talk to clients about how they say/met so and so. + It's an indirect way to contribute to campaigns without it technically being a campaign donation + It's a form of buying favour + And yes - it attracts other people whom you might be interested in meeting with etc..
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
james1071 10y ago
Because Americans worship celebrities and bribe their politicians.
netcan 10y ago
"that’s like asking why anyone would pay Beyoncé or the Beatles a million dollars just to play a few songs" This almost feels like playing dumb. The fact that a legitimate public speaking economy exists and has a dynamic which is not based on payola does not mean that a dirtier side does not. Like other pieces of the money-in-politics puzzle there are legitimate, non-corrupt reasons to hand powerful people 6 figure checks for dropping by. The problem is that it also gives cover to the non-legitimate reasons.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Besides, Beyonce or the Beatles are/were either paid to perform shows (in which case, people except a large return from ticket prices), or are asked by some ultra-rich guy to perform at his party/whatever (in which case it's an extravagant spending).
  - noobiemcfoob 10y ago
    How's that different than conference tickets to see a speaker or a corporation hiring a big name to speak at their event?
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Beyoncé isn't just Beyoncé. Even when doing a private gig for a billionaire "she" is a huge event employing hundreds of people to install and operate a massive collection of sound, light and staging equipment. She, the person, may take a large fee but "she" the show is something very different than a politician giving a speech at a podium. Hiring a politician to give a speech at your corporate retreat is like hiring Beyoncé to attend your birthday party and not sing. It may be physically possible, but horribly awkward and everyone outside the party will wonder what was actually going on.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Billionaires do pay well north of $250k to have actors just show up at their party and do a speech though. And Clinton or Trump are probably better, more audience-relevant speakers for certain audiences. It's not like organizations with $225k to book a Hillary Clinton speaking engagement struggle for access to the government or like they don't have the willingness and ability to funnel money to her or her campaign in ways which don't involve paying market rate for a speaking engagement.
ramblenode 10y ago
> In the case of politicians like Hillary Clinton, many observers see a more sinister explanation for how a speech can be worth $225,000: the speech is buying political influence. > It’s impossible to say exactly how much the desire to influence politicians inflates their speaking fees. Goldman is, as with all their investments, expecting a positive return. I'm not sure why this is presented as some kind of alternative theory.
- qznc 10y ago
  Goldman does not need to actually influence Hillary. They only need to suggest the possibility, so their clients believe that Goldman has an advantage compared the competition.
- mdemare 10y ago
  They already received their positive return. By paying Hillary for her speeches, they blocked her from credibly moving to the left on financial reform to fend off Sanders.
  - puppetmaster3 10y ago
    Do we know who canceled Glass–Steagall? And after it was removed, how much tax payers paid to GS and such in '08, what was the rough figure?
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed Glass-Steagall [1], in part to make a merger between Citicorp (a bank) and Travelers Group (an insurance company) legal. Goldman Sachs did not win from it. They were on the "protected" side of Glass-Steagall's wall. Fees went down after JPMorgan and friends were allowed to throw their balance sheet around. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
      - puppetmaster3 10y ago
SagelyGuru 10y ago
In the case of top politicians, it does look very much like a convenient legal way to pay them bribes and/or rewards for "good work". This article does not really dispel that impression but rather strengthens it. It protests too much. Besides, there is a big difference between $225K for them and the $50K for the merely famous. Whereas $50K might well be the market rate for really inspirational and famous speakers, the additional $175K is for what exactly?
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>In the case of top politicians, it does look very much like a convenient legal way to pay them bribes and/or rewards for "good work". Yeah, as far as I'm concerned it's the equivalent of paying someone $200,000 for a bag of rocks. Sure, it's a legal transaction, but everyone knows the real purpose behind it: as a way to trade favors.
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. I'm a libertarian, so I really don't want any of the major U.S. presidential candidates to win. But some of my political friends in both the right and left have a phrase I was reminded of while reading this article. It's "Vox-splaining" The idea is that certain news outlets or articles exist based on the premise that those dumb voters! What they really just need is a patient voice to educate them on things. Then they would have correct political opinions. This can lead to really bad journalism where the author spends a lot of time trying to explain something that really doesn't need explaining -- all in an effort to correct misconceptions that nobody really ever had in the first place. Why do famous people get paid a bazillion bucks to speak? Why, because they're famous, of course! I just plowed through 2,000 words that basically says this in various ways. Yes, people pay lots of money to be near famous folks. They also pay money for access to famous folks. They pay money to influence famous folks to do things they want. There is no forced choice between these three options, and all can (and probably do) co-exist at the same time in many famous-person speaking engagements. Every person in a 1,000 person audience probably has a different reason why an expensive speaker is worth it (or not). My point has nothing directly to do with the Clinton campaign. I'm saying that you can't explain away an appearance of impropriety. We don't need extra education to figure out that sometimes folks pay an Apollo 13 astronaut a lot of money to have him come hang out at their annual civic club meeting. And that education doesn't paint away the glaringly obvious conclusion that when the astronaut shows up, there are all sorts of things that happen with increased access. Even if nothing unethical or illegal happens, in some situations that access doesn't look so good. So when Bernie asked why anybody would pay that much for a speaker, he was inviting people to come up with various reasons why they would pay that much. This is only logical because after all, the folks buying the speeches and listening to them are doing the same thing. They are asking themselves: how can I make my increased access to this famous person worth it to me? And they all have different answers. The first rule of ethics is that if it looks bad, it is bad. The reason is because it opens up discussion to people speculating like this -- and this speculation harms the institutions that the famous people represent. I believe the principle is that you are supposed to put the institution you represent above your own desires.
- gtirloni 10y ago
chvid 10y ago
This article is really about excusing Hillary Clinton isn't it? By making absurd comparisons to pop-stars who can fill stadiums of paying concert goers. America really needs to reign in its political class because it risks degenerating into a third-world country where corruption takes a big toll on the wealth of the whole society. Selling off ambassador's posts for large sum political donations seems to be very well-documented. As is pay-to-play. And yet it seems like American media and populace are just accepting and/or ignoring this.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  Do I think she bends the rules to make money/protect her ass? Yes. Do I think she bends the rules less than the other guy? I don't know. Probally not? On a side note, I will probally vote her. Why? Because I don't think Trump will raise tariffs, or can raise tariffs enough to "Make American great again." That said, I remember, in the 90's, Hillary made close to $100,000 on a under $1000 futures contract. It was supposedly under the "guidance" of the head attorney for Tyson foods. I was in college at the fine, but remember being floored when I heard how much she made in one year. They were middle class Americans when she made that huge amount of money. It must have been a world record at the time? We talked about it in class, and the instructor said, "I don't think I've ever met a successful investor that didn't get insider information. He said the wealthy/politicians are given preferential treatment. I remember he said Hillary should have been required to have an account of at least $12,000 in order to even play the future's contract she won on. Anyways, I don't know a wealthy person who didn't cheat in their lives. The ones who claim it was luck/just hard work are in denial. (I'm personally sick of wealthy people cheating the system. I can honestly state I have never met one that was completely honest. And then again, I most likely will vote for her. I don't want to go back to no insurance, and a bunch of conservative judges. Oh, yea, I remember reading a multiple studies where Supreme Court judges cannot be expected to vote line they did in the past once on that bench. Meaning--conservative judges sometimes ve one liberal ones. So, that isn't high on my radar.)
  - jklinger410 10y ago
    >Do I think she bends the rules less than the other guy? I don't know. Probally not? Fool me once...
Hermel 10y ago
When the same person who gets 250'000 for a single gig regularly performs for free for other audiences, something is fishy.
mangeletti 10y ago
I watched a documentary called Clinton Cash[1] that provided some correlations to explore, pertaining the Clintons' speaking fees. 1. https://youtu.be/7LYRUOd_QoM https://youtu.be/7LYRUOd_QoM
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  Oh boy correlations, the lifeblood of the conspiracy theoriest
Spooky23 10y ago
It attracts people to your event. If you're paying $1,000/plate for some fundraiser, there's an expectation for something more than rubber chicken and a photo with representative so and so.
tomohawk 10y ago
While Hillary was Secretary of State, Bill's speaking fees from foreign interests dramatically skyrocketed. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-secretary-state/story?id=30522705 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-s... One example of these appears to be related to the uranium deal with Russia, where he bagged $500K. Hillary changed direction and signed off on the deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... This is not the only form of payola for corrupt elites. Hillary's new book, for which she received a record $14M advance, sold less that 3000 copyies its first week. We've seen this before.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Results of the book's sells aren't that shocking if the sells per new book from her past books are accounted for: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-stronger-together.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-boo... Is shocking she got 14-million, which seems really fishy to me.
- parasubvert 10y ago
  Great to see partisan political commentary on HN. There is no proof of quid pro quo in that Russia uranium deal: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/... Also, Clinton sold a lot more than 3000 copies that first week; more like 85000 (still not as good as her prior best sellers): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hillary-s-so-so-book-sales-portend-for-a-clinton-candidacy.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hil...
  - tootie 10y ago
    She's also going to be selling copies for the next 10 years.
  - sidlls 10y ago
    Quoting Politifact isn't a rebuttal. Also, "quid pro quo" as used by politicians who peddle their influence is basically unprovable. It's a great standard for them to make mainstream, but unfortunately fails to accurately describe all the ways influence peddling and bribery schemes work.
robbiemitchell 10y ago
As someone who worked at a company that hired HRC to speak, I can speak from experience. We were not buying influence. She was there to impress attendees (e.g., prospective and existing clients) with a speech and photo opps afterward -- same as the other speakers we brought in previously and after. It's easy to see conspiracies from afar, but the reality -- at least our reality -- was mundane.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  Unless you were the guy writing the check or were present for every phone call and closed door meeting, I'm not sure how you can claim this.
  - robbiemitchell 10y ago
    I can claim it because that's what my first-hand experience told me -- which is more experience than most. Even if I were in all meetings, you could say I wasn't inside the CEO's head.
    - whamlastxmas 10y ago
      Hiring a speaker for prestige and for influence are not mutually exclusive.
    - dominotw 10y ago
      what about federal contracts that we have all been hearing about[1]. > What's more, the investigation revealed that many of the groups had federal contracts or lobbied the Clinton State Department. Some even had direct contact with Clinton or her top aides while she was secretary of state. 1. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/heres-who-paid-hillary-clinton-22-million-in-speaking-fees http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/heres-who-pai...
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  The point of a keynote speaker is to raise the stature of the event. That, in turn, helps fill seats with potential customers. The clients, not the speaker, are the ones organisers are trying to influence. It stands, however, that said raising of stature comes from the implicit connection the audience is encouraged to make between the keynote speaker (in this case, a politician) and the organisers.
droopyEyelids 10y ago
My first thought was that someone didn't tell Priceonomics about how attempting to be a policitical influencer runs counter to the goal of being seen as an intelligent source of independent thought... I had thought that was their brand. They really come off as dumb and naive here. But then I thought, maybe they're interested in getting into the Think Tank game. This might be a sort of tryout.
ausjke 10y ago
it's not what she/he speaks, it's that they become the honeypot for the event, so the event can get larger attention/influence(fame, money, publicity,etc).
ufmace 10y ago
I like to look at these things from the other side. Say you're a high-level politician and/or civil servant and want to find a way for somebody to pay you off for granting them political favors. What would you do? Paid speeches sound great. Hire a speechwriter for a few thousand bucks, then you just go and give it to them and collect your fee. That fee can be whatever you want, because who can say what a speech is really worth? Beats the pants off of running a charity for your benefactors to donate to, where it has to at least look like a decent amount of the money is going to some worthy cause. You can do whatever you feel like with your speaking fees. Your benefactors don't get to write off their payoffs as charitable donations, but that's hardly your problem. I can't prove that that's how it happened, of course. But isn't that part of the appeal of the scheme? Who could ever prove that it was or wasn't a payoff in disguise? It's like the conflict of interest thing. It's best to just not do it, as least while you're active in government and have the ability to subtly grant favors. Even if it's completely fair, standard, and on the level, it still looks dirty, you can never satisfactorily prove that it isn't dirty, and you waste a ton of time arguing about it, which just serves to cement in peoples' minds the notion that you are dirty.
- AJ007 10y ago
  Some people go to great lengths to try to avoid something that would even appear to be a conflict of interest. Others couldn't even be bothered to cross the street if it inconvenienced them. Here are some things that could be investigated, probably the same way one would use data science for fraud detection: - Compile a broad database of speakers, fees they received, when it happened - Find a way to rate speakers based on their public visibility. In other words, who attracts an audience more than someone else. Conceivably, the value of a "Speaker" is to get people to show up to your event and pay to be there. - Create a network database of relationships of speakers and family members. - Start looking for anomalies related to outsized speaking fees and changes when a family member is or is not holding a public office. - From that, investigators would need to start looking in to the details of who may have done what for who Despite what is read in the press, Western countries are moving hard against public corruption and perceived corruption and have since the post-9/11 anti-money laundering changes.
brownhats 10y ago
We are bound to our own ignorance and gullibility when we accept bribery as a cost that all free people can bear.
cowardlydragon 10y ago
It's called a bribe, folks.
joelhooks 10y ago
It's kind of a shame that this article devolves into political discussion, as that is the least interesting aspect of the thing. Public speaking is hard af, and being even decent at it pays dividends.
gjolund 10y ago
They don't. They get paid to push a policy, the speech is just a legal way to compensate them.
dmode 10y ago
Barney Frank was on Bill Maher show the other day and he said he gets money from Wall Street on speaking engagements. And he is literally the author of Dodd Frank. The reason he gets invited because he knows more about the context of the regulation that anyone else and can answer complex question. A rather mundane reason. But if you omit that part, you can easily construct a more nefarious narrative on how a Senator is invited by Wall Street to influence regulations. Most times life is mundane and conspiracy theories are just that
andythro77 10y ago
hi, am Doris, i had my friend help me hack my ex's email, facebook, whatsapp,and his phone cause i suspected he was cheating. all he asked for was a his phone number. he's email is (cyberlord7714@gmail.com)..IF u need help tell him Doris, referred you to him and he'll help. Am sure his going to help you do it, good luck
andythro77 10y ago
hi, am Doris, i had my friend help me hack my ex's email, facebook, whatsapp,and his phone cause i suspected he was cheating. all he asked for was a his phone number. he's email is (cyberlord7714@gmail.com)..IF u need help tell him Doris, referred you to him and he'll help. Am sure his going to help you do it, good luck

126 points by kungfudoi 10y ago

known 10y ago

When a common man does it, it's called bribery. When a lobbyist does it, it's a great law.

chrisseaton 10y ago
Most of the people listed in this article aren't politicians, and so can't enact any laws. And even when they are politicians, it looks like they are almost always retired politicians, who can't enact any laws. Some of them are even counter-establishment figures like satirists and even hackers (in the security sense). Hillary Clinton is a prominent example, but the article's explanation is that she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate, which seems reasonable. 'it's a great law' doesn't even make sense in your sentence. What's a great law? Bribing people? Bribing people isn't lawful.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  Only amateurs bribe any more. Professionals negatively bribe: They sponsor the whole show and just stop giving you money once you oppose.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    You'd be surprised. The distinction you make exists, but it's not about amateurs vs professionals, but obviously about those that can afford it (to "sponsor the whole show") and those who don't. Smaller businesses and interest groups pay their way into laws the traditional bride way all the time.
- leereeves 10y ago
  > she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate Did she leave the part of her that was a future (at the time) presidential candidate at home?
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    > That seems reasonable? Yes it does to me. If they invite many former secretaries of state it seems reasonable to invite this one. Who cares what she's currently working on if that's not why she was invited? The article even says she hardly mentioned her candidacy. If you're desperate to get worked up about this I can see where you would find the problem, but I think a charitable interpretation is a former secretary of state was invited to talk like many others were.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      > a charitable interpretation Indeed. If you trust her, you may not see a problem, but if you don't trust her, it's easy to argue this is disguised bribery. There's a huge difference between a former secretary of state with no prospects of power in the future and someone everyone knew would run for President in a few years.
      - jomamaxx 10y ago
        It's a conflict of interest wether you trust her or not. It's a very thin line, this game. Clinton should have recused herself from all Clinton Global Initiative issues a long time ago. The massive Clinton fund with millions in donations from all sorts of political actors, mostly in nefarious places, is worse than Trump's excuses for not releasing his taxes (which he should definitely do).
        jomamaxx 10y ago
        Simple conflicts of interest revealed in a one minute Google search: A) Matt Lauer, Tom Brokaw, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakaria, Katie Couric - and many others - are all members of the press who are supposed to objectively vet candidates, and who will/have moderated political debates, were previously listed as a 'Notable Members' the Clinton Foundation. [1] B) More than 1/2 of the private entities she met with while Sec of State donated to her Fund - total over $50M. Foreign governments with whom she dealt with directly gave her fund over $170M - this is just the first 1/2 of her term. That's a serious conflict of interest. "Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she (Clinton, as Sec. State) and her top aides (again government officials) had with foundation donors." [2] C) Clinton put someone on a government board (security related) - who had no experience in the field. [3] It's a long list. [1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-matt-lauer-was-listed-as-a-notable-member-of-clinton-foundation-initiative/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-matt-lauer-was-list... [2] http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5... [3] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intel...
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "Most of the people listed in this article aren't politicians, and so can't enact any laws. " They are connected individuals who will provide introductions, lobbying and favours for the people paying for the speech. "but the article's explanation is that she is invited as a retired secretary of state, as other retired secretaries of state have been, rather than as a current presidential candidate, which seems reasonable." This is really a little naive. Hillary Clinton is running for Pres with a 70% chance of getting it, her husband is the #1 most connected man in the world. Over 50% of the private entities she met while Sec of State donated to the Clinton slush fund, to the tune of over $57 million dollars. It's a form of soft corruption - 100%. A $250K 'speaking fee' is just another way to transfer money from an org, to a political entity. A 'donation' to the Clinton Global Initiative is simply a donation to the de-facto Clinton PAC/fund. It's a form of corruption and it's not a secret. You don't donate to Clinton fund - then get an introduction/favour by Clinton by accident. I'm singling out Clinton because you did, but it's the same across the board.

pipio21 10y ago

It is not famous people, it is Hillary Clinton. As the article says, famous people get paid less than 50.000. Why does Hillary gets paid five times that amount: 1-Because the Clintons already repealed Glass–Steagall Act removing controls on the financial industry and giving them billions in the process. Even a million is nothing compared to the billions they have received and the billions they will receive from Clinton. 2-Hillary is the responsible person for US invading three new countries and creating havoc on there in the last years. This invasions correspond to a transfer of several billions to the Arms industry. Even a million is nothing compared to billions they have received and the billions they will receive from Clinton. 2-Big companies had made big business with her and Obama. TPP, TIPP will make billions for them. 3-It is the candidate elected by the establishment for obvious reasons(look above). Most newspapers support Clinton, the Democrat party supports Clinton above Sanders over what most people wanted, the big companies...

loeber 10y ago
No, it is famous people in general. Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, has openly written about being paid well over 100k per speech, several times a year. You can Google this. George W. Bush charges, on average, 150k per speech. A-List and B-List celebrities can easily get well in the six, occasionally in the seven figures for a public appearance of this sort. Rutgers University even paid Snooki about 32k for a commencement speech, if you remember this delightfully controversial event. You have to keep in mind that for such events, the speaker usually does not constitute the majority of expenses. Organizing meals, booking a venue, and other logistics are not cheap already. Above all, such events are mostly for purposes of showing off or building morale: organizers want attendants (usually employees) to feel good about where they work. Just like with other kinds of corporate-level showing off, there's a big budget. If anything, I think Hillary Clinton is paid surprisingly little for her public appearances (even though they do happen in great quantity).
epistasis 10y ago
The top section of people there is the greater than $50k section, not less than $50k.
yyyuuu 10y ago

feklar 10y ago

This is how RMS has made a living for 2 decades. One advantage to attending these is being able to briefly talk to the speaker afterwards if they stick around, like asking RMS about his papers in the 1970s about propagation, dependencies and backtracking for building large-scale symbolic systems.

hkmurakami 10y ago
Don't people basically see this as a willing donation to RMS / FSF? (which reminds me that I need to make my FSF donation for the year)
dorfsmay 10y ago
Unless it has changed recently, RMS asks for all his fees to be paid, and does not ask for a fee but makes it clear that one is appreciated and that if no speaking fee is paid, he's essentially given the speech for free. My experience is that organisations and people inviting him to speak do pay him, but in the thousands of dollars, similarly to what you'd pay a high end consultant to spend a day or two to travel and work ; not high tens of thousand and certainly not hundreds of thousands dollars!
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  I meant "asks for all his expenses to be paid", not fees.

camillomiller 10y ago

Has anybody here ever had her/his mind changed by a great overpaid speaker? I've seen a lot of speeches in my professional life, and the ones that stuck the most were usually from non-famous low-paid speakers. The more famous and accomplished (and American, actually) the speaker is, the more the speech would steer toward a self-eulogy of the person's work achievements. And it's boring. It's a bit sad that most of the time this kind of talks are nothing more than marketing stunts for both the speakers and the conference organizers.

tikhonj 10y ago
I don't know about changing my mind per se, but I definitely got a new perspective on financial regulation after attending a talk by Barney Frank (famous for the Dodd-Frank bill). I don't remember the exact details now, but hearing about how he designed the regulations was very interesting, even if it was a pretty high-level description. It colored my understanding of the regulation in a way that just reading a description on Wikipedia didn't.
- camillomiller 10y ago
  Well, I won't call him a "famous speaker", not outside of a specific field (politics and finance). By famous I mean popular in a broader sense. On the tech side of things that would mean Steve Wozniak famous, so to say (famous for his contribution on a specific field, but broadly recognized as popular).
- RobertoG 10y ago
  Who paid the bill for that talk? I bet it wasn't Goldman & Sachs.
  - tootie 10y ago
    Look at their list of speakers. Russel Simmons, Deepak Chopra, Shaq. They invite all kinds of people. These are usually in the big offices in NY or London so most of the attendees are likely to be liberals.

throwaway287391 10y ago

Do they give a discount for speaking gigs in/around their hometown? It seems like 90+% of the "work" (and certainly the time) involved in most of the out-of-town speaking gigs would be traveling to and from them, rather than the actual speaking.

saurik 10y ago
I give a lot of talks, and coming up with engaging content and organizing it, often with visual aids (though I realize many of these extremely highly paid people don't use those; but I will say that having engaging material without visuals is even harder....), is enormously time consuming. The time I spend traveling is meanwhile relatively meaningless. To compare: thing of a stand up comedian, and ask yourself if 90% of their "work" is driving to the venue.
- throwaway287391 10y ago
  Sure, but the time spent creating the talk content is amortized over all the times it's given. I doubt most of the speakers listed in the article are creating custom talks for each speaking gig they're hired for. (From the article: "A $20,000 to $200,000 check may or may not buy a customized speech.") In my experience, if I can repeat (or mostly rehash/remix) previous talk(s) I've given, the marginal cost of giving another one is ~3 hours for one in my area vs. 1-3 full days for out of town.
- perlgeek 10y ago
  The real question is how often you can give the same talk (possibly with slight variations) in different locations, because each performance of the same speech amortizes the time cost to prepare it initially.
zacharycohn 10y ago
Don't sell yourself by the hour. Sell by value.
- throwaway287391 10y ago

yyyuuu 10y ago

The tree has entered my hands, The sap has ascended my arms, The tree has grown in my breast- Downward, The branches grow out of me, like arms. Tree you are, Moss you are, You are violets with wind above them. A child - so high - you are, And all this is folly to the world.

lx0741 10y ago

It's a legal way to baksheesh them! Nicolas Sarkozy then a random french president got payed over 200000 euros to give a 15mn speech at a Qatar based event. Qatar did really well in Business with the french since then. That's how it works!

thomasahle 10y ago
Well this is exactly what fta is about. People also give this kind of money to famous non politicians.
- lx0741 10y ago
  Maybe because they influence the people who vote
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Well this is exactly what fta is about No, tfa explicitly downplays this. >People also give this kind of money to famous non politicians. Only famous non-politicians have interesting and specific things to say (e.g. someone like Malcom Gladwell, etc). Few care what a politician has to say, after all they hear what they have to say all the time, in interviews, public statements, campaign speeches, etc.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >Only famous non-politicians have interesting and specific things to say (e.g. someone like Malcom Gladwell, etc) Malcolm Gladwell is paid to be a presentable face for the tobacco, banking and pharma industries: http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/ http://shameproject.com/profile/malcolm-gladwell-2/
    - coldtea 10y ago
      AND also sells millions of books to people who just want to read what he says.

aleem 10y ago

Networking is one of the likliest reasons. A Clinton dinner at 10k per head will attract a certain kind of audience. The speech itself may not carry as much importance as the presence of other dignitaries, industrialists, upcomers, lobbyists and so forth.

jomamaxx 10y ago
+ People get to say: 'I saw so and so' + It establishes the cred of the audience, i.e. all the bankers can talk to clients about how they say/met so and so. + It's an indirect way to contribute to campaigns without it technically being a campaign donation + It's a form of buying favour + And yes - it attracts other people whom you might be interested in meeting with etc..

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

james1071 10y ago

Because Americans worship celebrities and bribe their politicians.

netcan 10y ago

"that’s like asking why anyone would pay Beyoncé or the Beatles a million dollars just to play a few songs" This almost feels like playing dumb. The fact that a legitimate public speaking economy exists and has a dynamic which is not based on payola does not mean that a dirtier side does not. Like other pieces of the money-in-politics puzzle there are legitimate, non-corrupt reasons to hand powerful people 6 figure checks for dropping by. The problem is that it also gives cover to the non-legitimate reasons.

coldtea 10y ago
Besides, Beyonce or the Beatles are/were either paid to perform shows (in which case, people except a large return from ticket prices), or are asked by some ultra-rich guy to perform at his party/whatever (in which case it's an extravagant spending).
- noobiemcfoob 10y ago
  How's that different than conference tickets to see a speaker or a corporation hiring a big name to speak at their event?
sandworm101 10y ago
Beyoncé isn't just Beyoncé. Even when doing a private gig for a billionaire "she" is a huge event employing hundreds of people to install and operate a massive collection of sound, light and staging equipment. She, the person, may take a large fee but "she" the show is something very different than a politician giving a speech at a podium. Hiring a politician to give a speech at your corporate retreat is like hiring Beyoncé to attend your birthday party and not sing. It may be physically possible, but horribly awkward and everyone outside the party will wonder what was actually going on.
- notahacker 10y ago
  Billionaires do pay well north of $250k to have actors just show up at their party and do a speech though. And Clinton or Trump are probably better, more audience-relevant speakers for certain audiences. It's not like organizations with $225k to book a Hillary Clinton speaking engagement struggle for access to the government or like they don't have the willingness and ability to funnel money to her or her campaign in ways which don't involve paying market rate for a speaking engagement.

ramblenode 10y ago

> In the case of politicians like Hillary Clinton, many observers see a more sinister explanation for how a speech can be worth $225,000: the speech is buying political influence. > It’s impossible to say exactly how much the desire to influence politicians inflates their speaking fees. Goldman is, as with all their investments, expecting a positive return. I'm not sure why this is presented as some kind of alternative theory.

qznc 10y ago
Goldman does not need to actually influence Hillary. They only need to suggest the possibility, so their clients believe that Goldman has an advantage compared the competition.
mdemare 10y ago
They already received their positive return. By paying Hillary for her speeches, they blocked her from credibly moving to the left on financial reform to fend off Sanders.
- puppetmaster3 10y ago
  Do we know who canceled Glass–Steagall? And after it was removed, how much tax payers paid to GS and such in '08, what was the rough figure?
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed Glass-Steagall [1], in part to make a merger between Citicorp (a bank) and Travelers Group (an insurance company) legal. Goldman Sachs did not win from it. They were on the "protected" side of Glass-Steagall's wall. Fees went down after JPMorgan and friends were allowed to throw their balance sheet around. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
    - puppetmaster3 10y ago

SagelyGuru 10y ago

In the case of top politicians, it does look very much like a convenient legal way to pay them bribes and/or rewards for "good work". This article does not really dispel that impression but rather strengthens it. It protests too much. Besides, there is a big difference between $225K for them and the $50K for the merely famous. Whereas $50K might well be the market rate for really inspirational and famous speakers, the additional $175K is for what exactly?

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>In the case of top politicians, it does look very much like a convenient legal way to pay them bribes and/or rewards for "good work". Yeah, as far as I'm concerned it's the equivalent of paying someone $200,000 for a bag of rocks. Sure, it's a legal transaction, but everyone knows the real purpose behind it: as a way to trade favors.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. I'm a libertarian, so I really don't want any of the major U.S. presidential candidates to win. But some of my political friends in both the right and left have a phrase I was reminded of while reading this article. It's "Vox-splaining" The idea is that certain news outlets or articles exist based on the premise that those dumb voters! What they really just need is a patient voice to educate them on things. Then they would have correct political opinions. This can lead to really bad journalism where the author spends a lot of time trying to explain something that really doesn't need explaining -- all in an effort to correct misconceptions that nobody really ever had in the first place. Why do famous people get paid a bazillion bucks to speak? Why, because they're famous, of course! I just plowed through 2,000 words that basically says this in various ways. Yes, people pay lots of money to be near famous folks. They also pay money for access to famous folks. They pay money to influence famous folks to do things they want. There is no forced choice between these three options, and all can (and probably do) co-exist at the same time in many famous-person speaking engagements. Every person in a 1,000 person audience probably has a different reason why an expensive speaker is worth it (or not). My point has nothing directly to do with the Clinton campaign. I'm saying that you can't explain away an appearance of impropriety. We don't need extra education to figure out that sometimes folks pay an Apollo 13 astronaut a lot of money to have him come hang out at their annual civic club meeting. And that education doesn't paint away the glaringly obvious conclusion that when the astronaut shows up, there are all sorts of things that happen with increased access. Even if nothing unethical or illegal happens, in some situations that access doesn't look so good. So when Bernie asked why anybody would pay that much for a speaker, he was inviting people to come up with various reasons why they would pay that much. This is only logical because after all, the folks buying the speeches and listening to them are doing the same thing. They are asking themselves: how can I make my increased access to this famous person worth it to me? And they all have different answers. The first rule of ethics is that if it looks bad, it is bad. The reason is because it opens up discussion to people speculating like this -- and this speculation harms the institutions that the famous people represent. I believe the principle is that you are supposed to put the institution you represent above your own desires.

gtirloni 10y ago

chvid 10y ago

This article is really about excusing Hillary Clinton isn't it? By making absurd comparisons to pop-stars who can fill stadiums of paying concert goers. America really needs to reign in its political class because it risks degenerating into a third-world country where corruption takes a big toll on the wealth of the whole society. Selling off ambassador's posts for large sum political donations seems to be very well-documented. As is pay-to-play. And yet it seems like American media and populace are just accepting and/or ignoring this.

icantdrive55 10y ago
Do I think she bends the rules to make money/protect her ass? Yes. Do I think she bends the rules less than the other guy? I don't know. Probally not? On a side note, I will probally vote her. Why? Because I don't think Trump will raise tariffs, or can raise tariffs enough to "Make American great again." That said, I remember, in the 90's, Hillary made close to $100,000 on a under $1000 futures contract. It was supposedly under the "guidance" of the head attorney for Tyson foods. I was in college at the fine, but remember being floored when I heard how much she made in one year. They were middle class Americans when she made that huge amount of money. It must have been a world record at the time? We talked about it in class, and the instructor said, "I don't think I've ever met a successful investor that didn't get insider information. He said the wealthy/politicians are given preferential treatment. I remember he said Hillary should have been required to have an account of at least $12,000 in order to even play the future's contract she won on. Anyways, I don't know a wealthy person who didn't cheat in their lives. The ones who claim it was luck/just hard work are in denial. (I'm personally sick of wealthy people cheating the system. I can honestly state I have never met one that was completely honest. And then again, I most likely will vote for her. I don't want to go back to no insurance, and a bunch of conservative judges. Oh, yea, I remember reading a multiple studies where Supreme Court judges cannot be expected to vote line they did in the past once on that bench. Meaning--conservative judges sometimes ve one liberal ones. So, that isn't high on my radar.)
- jklinger410 10y ago
  >Do I think she bends the rules less than the other guy? I don't know. Probally not? Fool me once...

Hermel 10y ago

When the same person who gets 250'000 for a single gig regularly performs for free for other audiences, something is fishy.

mangeletti 10y ago

I watched a documentary called Clinton Cash[1] that provided some correlations to explore, pertaining the Clintons' speaking fees. 1. https://youtu.be/7LYRUOd_QoM https://youtu.be/7LYRUOd_QoM

hackinthebochs 10y ago
Oh boy correlations, the lifeblood of the conspiracy theoriest

Spooky23 10y ago

It attracts people to your event. If you're paying $1,000/plate for some fundraiser, there's an expectation for something more than rubber chicken and a photo with representative so and so.

tomohawk 10y ago

While Hillary was Secretary of State, Bill's speaking fees from foreign interests dramatically skyrocketed. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-secretary-state/story?id=30522705 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-s... One example of these appears to be related to the uranium deal with Russia, where he bagged $500K. Hillary changed direction and signed off on the deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... This is not the only form of payola for corrupt elites. Hillary's new book, for which she received a record $14M advance, sold less that 3000 copyies its first week. We've seen this before.

nxzero 10y ago
Results of the book's sells aren't that shocking if the sells per new book from her past books are accounted for: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-stronger-together.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-boo... Is shocking she got 14-million, which seems really fishy to me.
parasubvert 10y ago
Great to see partisan political commentary on HN. There is no proof of quid pro quo in that Russia uranium deal: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/... Also, Clinton sold a lot more than 3000 copies that first week; more like 85000 (still not as good as her prior best sellers): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hillary-s-so-so-book-sales-portend-for-a-clinton-candidacy.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hil...
- tootie 10y ago
  She's also going to be selling copies for the next 10 years.
- sidlls 10y ago
  Quoting Politifact isn't a rebuttal. Also, "quid pro quo" as used by politicians who peddle their influence is basically unprovable. It's a great standard for them to make mainstream, but unfortunately fails to accurately describe all the ways influence peddling and bribery schemes work.

robbiemitchell 10y ago

As someone who worked at a company that hired HRC to speak, I can speak from experience. We were not buying influence. She was there to impress attendees (e.g., prospective and existing clients) with a speech and photo opps afterward -- same as the other speakers we brought in previously and after. It's easy to see conspiracies from afar, but the reality -- at least our reality -- was mundane.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
Unless you were the guy writing the check or were present for every phone call and closed door meeting, I'm not sure how you can claim this.
- robbiemitchell 10y ago
  I can claim it because that's what my first-hand experience told me -- which is more experience than most. Even if I were in all meetings, you could say I wasn't inside the CEO's head.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    Hiring a speaker for prestige and for influence are not mutually exclusive.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    what about federal contracts that we have all been hearing about[1]. > What's more, the investigation revealed that many of the groups had federal contracts or lobbied the Clinton State Department. Some even had direct contact with Clinton or her top aides while she was secretary of state. 1. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/heres-who-paid-hillary-clinton-22-million-in-speaking-fees http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/heres-who-pai...
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
The point of a keynote speaker is to raise the stature of the event. That, in turn, helps fill seats with potential customers. The clients, not the speaker, are the ones organisers are trying to influence. It stands, however, that said raising of stature comes from the implicit connection the audience is encouraged to make between the keynote speaker (in this case, a politician) and the organisers.

droopyEyelids 10y ago

My first thought was that someone didn't tell Priceonomics about how attempting to be a policitical influencer runs counter to the goal of being seen as an intelligent source of independent thought... I had thought that was their brand. They really come off as dumb and naive here. But then I thought, maybe they're interested in getting into the Think Tank game. This might be a sort of tryout.

ausjke 10y ago

it's not what she/he speaks, it's that they become the honeypot for the event, so the event can get larger attention/influence(fame, money, publicity,etc).

ufmace 10y ago

I like to look at these things from the other side. Say you're a high-level politician and/or civil servant and want to find a way for somebody to pay you off for granting them political favors. What would you do? Paid speeches sound great. Hire a speechwriter for a few thousand bucks, then you just go and give it to them and collect your fee. That fee can be whatever you want, because who can say what a speech is really worth? Beats the pants off of running a charity for your benefactors to donate to, where it has to at least look like a decent amount of the money is going to some worthy cause. You can do whatever you feel like with your speaking fees. Your benefactors don't get to write off their payoffs as charitable donations, but that's hardly your problem. I can't prove that that's how it happened, of course. But isn't that part of the appeal of the scheme? Who could ever prove that it was or wasn't a payoff in disguise? It's like the conflict of interest thing. It's best to just not do it, as least while you're active in government and have the ability to subtly grant favors. Even if it's completely fair, standard, and on the level, it still looks dirty, you can never satisfactorily prove that it isn't dirty, and you waste a ton of time arguing about it, which just serves to cement in peoples' minds the notion that you are dirty.

AJ007 10y ago
Some people go to great lengths to try to avoid something that would even appear to be a conflict of interest. Others couldn't even be bothered to cross the street if it inconvenienced them. Here are some things that could be investigated, probably the same way one would use data science for fraud detection: - Compile a broad database of speakers, fees they received, when it happened - Find a way to rate speakers based on their public visibility. In other words, who attracts an audience more than someone else. Conceivably, the value of a "Speaker" is to get people to show up to your event and pay to be there. - Create a network database of relationships of speakers and family members. - Start looking for anomalies related to outsized speaking fees and changes when a family member is or is not holding a public office. - From that, investigators would need to start looking in to the details of who may have done what for who Despite what is read in the press, Western countries are moving hard against public corruption and perceived corruption and have since the post-9/11 anti-money laundering changes.

brownhats 10y ago

We are bound to our own ignorance and gullibility when we accept bribery as a cost that all free people can bear.

cowardlydragon 10y ago

It's called a bribe, folks.

joelhooks 10y ago

It's kind of a shame that this article devolves into political discussion, as that is the least interesting aspect of the thing. Public speaking is hard af, and being even decent at it pays dividends.

gjolund 10y ago

They don't. They get paid to push a policy, the speech is just a legal way to compensate them.

dmode 10y ago

Barney Frank was on Bill Maher show the other day and he said he gets money from Wall Street on speaking engagements. And he is literally the author of Dodd Frank. The reason he gets invited because he knows more about the context of the regulation that anyone else and can answer complex question. A rather mundane reason. But if you omit that part, you can easily construct a more nefarious narrative on how a Senator is invited by Wall Street to influence regulations. Most times life is mundane and conspiracy theories are just that

andythro77 10y ago

hi, am Doris, i had my friend help me hack my ex's email, facebook, whatsapp,and his phone cause i suspected he was cheating. all he asked for was a his phone number. he's email is (cyberlord7714@gmail.com)..IF u need help tell him Doris, referred you to him and he'll help. Am sure his going to help you do it, good luck

andythro77 10y ago