5 ms·

False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income fo

False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income for the long list of politicians, from both left and right, who have engaged in that practice. But those events aren't about buying influence, they're about rich wankers feeling special because they get to hear some bullshit commencement address from important people behind closed doors. Those private speeches don't buy any more influence than campaign contributions... which is to say rather little for the presidency. The higher the office, the more visibility and intervening forces there are to keep you from making arbitrary policy in favor of donors. To be clear, I agree these things are bad. And we should strive to remove them entirely from our democracy. But the magnitude of both campaign contributions and private event income is routinely overstated these days.

KVFinn 9y ago
>It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income for the long list of politicians, from both left and right, who have engaged in that practice. But those events aren't about buying influence, they're about rich wankers feeling special because they get to hear some bullshit commencement address from important people behind closed doors. Also about the fact that people are more likely to sign over millions of dollars in accounts to be managed after they are hanging out in the glow after shaking the hands of somebody they admire. The bank hires Neil Degrasse Tyson or any other celebrity for the same reason. They make money even after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
> False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. "False equivalence"? I wasn't "equating" anything. The fact that they are separate categories was the entire point. Namely, that campaign contributions have to (at least in theory) be spent on the campaign, while "speaking fees" are pure slush that can be used for anything the politician desires. > Those private speeches don't buy any more influence than campaign contributions... which is to say rather little for the presidency. Are you seriously arguing that politicians aren't influenced when people give them $400,000 of free money (allegedly for standing in front of a crowd and spouting nonsense for 20 minutes)? Dude, these are politicians, not saints.

KVFinn 9y ago

>It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income for the long list of politicians, from both left and right, who have engaged in that practice. But those events aren't about buying influence, they're about rich wankers feeling special because they get to hear some bullshit commencement address from important people behind closed doors. Also about the fact that people are more likely to sign over millions of dollars in accounts to be managed after they are hanging out in the glow after shaking the hands of somebody they admire. The bank hires Neil Degrasse Tyson or any other celebrity for the same reason. They make money even after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Turing_Machine 9y ago

> False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. "False equivalence"? I wasn't "equating" anything. The fact that they are separate categories was the entire point. Namely, that campaign contributions have to (at least in theory) be spent on the campaign, while "speaking fees" are pure slush that can be used for anything the politician desires. > Those private speeches don't buy any more influence than campaign contributions... which is to say rather little for the presidency. Are you seriously arguing that politicians aren't influenced when people give them $400,000 of free money (allegedly for standing in front of a crowd and spouting nonsense for 20 minutes)? Dude, these are politicians, not saints.