4 ms·

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 polit

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
Brazilian politicians have recently "discovered" the "benefits" of paid speeches too. A famous ex-president used to charge north of $200k USD saying that's what international speakers like Clinton charge, so he ought to be allowed to do the same. Evidence is mounting this was a venue for converting bribes into legal money, or to buy influence from the Brazilian state machine. Funny anecdote: he was once paid such amount to speak to a audience of workers from a beer factory. After arriving, he basically drank a pint of beer in front of everyone, said some funny jokes and disappeared into the offices to discuss "business". That was a speech and he damn well charges what he wants for that, that was the explanation. It amazes me that these people, having reached their peak in social influence and often in their bank accounts, can pretend to justify speeches as a revenue source. If they are so concerned with making the world a better place, they could charge just their expenses and maybe a modest fee to pay their bills. Hell, I'm sure most famous decent people would do it for free if it's really a good cause. Completely agree, it feels bad, it smells bad... If you have any ethics, you know it's bad and you don't engage in such shenanigans.
tootie 10y ago
I think if you listed the policy positions of the 4 top candidates with no names attached and asked a random sampling of people which was most corrupted by corporate cash, Gary Johnson would win by a mile. If this election has taught me one thing it's that money in politics is a non-issue. Proof is in the pudding. If Clinton is bought and paid for to be a liberal, then kudos to whoever bid highest. Johnson and Trump are willing to wreck the country free of charge.

gtirloni 10y ago

Brazilian politicians have recently "discovered" the "benefits" of paid speeches too. A famous ex-president used to charge north of $200k USD saying that's what international speakers like Clinton charge, so he ought to be allowed to do the same. Evidence is mounting this was a venue for converting bribes into legal money, or to buy influence from the Brazilian state machine. Funny anecdote: he was once paid such amount to speak to a audience of workers from a beer factory. After arriving, he basically drank a pint of beer in front of everyone, said some funny jokes and disappeared into the offices to discuss "business". That was a speech and he damn well charges what he wants for that, that was the explanation. It amazes me that these people, having reached their peak in social influence and often in their bank accounts, can pretend to justify speeches as a revenue source. If they are so concerned with making the world a better place, they could charge just their expenses and maybe a modest fee to pay their bills. Hell, I'm sure most famous decent people would do it for free if it's really a good cause. Completely agree, it feels bad, it smells bad... If you have any ethics, you know it's bad and you don't engage in such shenanigans.

tootie 10y ago

I think if you listed the policy positions of the 4 top candidates with no names attached and asked a random sampling of people which was most corrupted by corporate cash, Gary Johnson would win by a mile. If this election has taught me one thing it's that money in politics is a non-issue. Proof is in the pudding. If Clinton is bought and paid for to be a liberal, then kudos to whoever bid highest. Johnson and Trump are willing to wreck the country free of charge.