4 ms·

> How much do you think it should cost to get a former president to give a talk? That's not the right question. The question is whether ex-Presidents ought to

by _qulr 6y ago

> How much do you think it should cost to get a former president to give a talk? That's not the right question. The question is whether ex-Presidents ought to accept these bribes. Compare the post-Presidencies of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, starkly different. > Yet obviously these celebrities aren't being tacitly bribed. What is your explanation for that? Celebrities aren't in positions of public service, so the whole concept of a "bribe" doesn't apply.

wycy 6y ago
> Celebrities aren't in positions of public service, so the whole concept of a "bribe" doesn't apply. To add to this, we should also be holding Presidents to a higher ethics standard than, say, Kim Kardashian.
- Person5478 6y ago
  yeah, and that idea is so obvious it's a little difficult for me to understand why the original comparison was even made.
threatofrain 6y ago
Presidents are different than Treasury Secretaries because historically they became impotent and sought no further office. A bribery scheme is hard to enforce when the president becomes impotent during the period they'd like to get payment. Celebrities are different because they make tons of money and are business propositions in and of themselves, meaning their star power could bring immense attraction to the event, which is part of what commencement speakers are for.
- btown 6y ago
  Even if an official seeks no further office and is "impotent" at the time of payment, the prospect of speaking fees can still be a perverse incentive. There's no evidence this is happening here, but theoretically an official could install policies favorable to a company, then be rewarded after leaving office with outsize speaking fees, and this would be a stable system of corruption because the company would have the reputation of following through on a practice of rewarding officials who produce favorable policies. One could take this further and apply it to the entire concept of a revolving door; if an official can make a career out of lobbying and consulting after leaving public office, they'll be incentivized to prioritize future employers over the public interest. Realistically, it's difficult to fully remove perverse incentives and still be able to attract talent (this applies to technical recruiting as well!). But there still need to be systems of accountability. Unfortunately, with two-party non-proportional representation, and a limited opportunity for voters to provide referendums on the corruption of party members separate from their policy viewpoints, there are many layers of insulation that prevent people from being held to account.
  - hooande 6y ago
    You realize that it's legal to form a political action committee and give literally unlimited amounts of money to any politician while they hold office, right?
- fallingknife 6y ago
  But you aren't bribing the former president. You're bribing the current president by showing him what awaits after he leaves office.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    The current president often has a deep dislike of the former president and entities perceived as close to him, and can quite happily make decisions unfavourable to your company safe in the knowledge that the speaking circuit won't be short of other people willing to pay him.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      > The current president often has a deep dislike of the former president and entities perceived as close to him This is not necessarily true. The Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas are like one big happy family. Trump is the exception because he pissed off everyone, but even he used to be friendly with the Clintons. Anyway this misses the point: in general, the system of buying political favors only works when political favors are repaid, and everyone operating in that system knows it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tootie 6y ago
Carter has taken speaking fees and Clinton runs one of the most successful charitable orgs in the world.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Carter has taken speaking fees https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127 https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-33... Former President Jimmy Carter "seldom accepts speaking fees," The Associated Press wrote in 2002, "and when he does he typically donates the proceeds to his charitable foundation." > Clinton runs one of the most successful charitable orgs in the world. So does Bill Gates. So what? Clinton also made more than $100 million for himself in speaking fees.

by _qulr 6y ago

wycy 6y ago

> Celebrities aren't in positions of public service, so the whole concept of a "bribe" doesn't apply. To add to this, we should also be holding Presidents to a higher ethics standard than, say, Kim Kardashian.

Person5478 6y ago
yeah, and that idea is so obvious it's a little difficult for me to understand why the original comparison was even made.

threatofrain 6y ago

Presidents are different than Treasury Secretaries because historically they became impotent and sought no further office. A bribery scheme is hard to enforce when the president becomes impotent during the period they'd like to get payment. Celebrities are different because they make tons of money and are business propositions in and of themselves, meaning their star power could bring immense attraction to the event, which is part of what commencement speakers are for.

btown 6y ago
Even if an official seeks no further office and is "impotent" at the time of payment, the prospect of speaking fees can still be a perverse incentive. There's no evidence this is happening here, but theoretically an official could install policies favorable to a company, then be rewarded after leaving office with outsize speaking fees, and this would be a stable system of corruption because the company would have the reputation of following through on a practice of rewarding officials who produce favorable policies. One could take this further and apply it to the entire concept of a revolving door; if an official can make a career out of lobbying and consulting after leaving public office, they'll be incentivized to prioritize future employers over the public interest. Realistically, it's difficult to fully remove perverse incentives and still be able to attract talent (this applies to technical recruiting as well!). But there still need to be systems of accountability. Unfortunately, with two-party non-proportional representation, and a limited opportunity for voters to provide referendums on the corruption of party members separate from their policy viewpoints, there are many layers of insulation that prevent people from being held to account.
- hooande 6y ago
  You realize that it's legal to form a political action committee and give literally unlimited amounts of money to any politician while they hold office, right?
fallingknife 6y ago
But you aren't bribing the former president. You're bribing the current president by showing him what awaits after he leaves office.
- notahacker 6y ago
  The current president often has a deep dislike of the former president and entities perceived as close to him, and can quite happily make decisions unfavourable to your company safe in the knowledge that the speaking circuit won't be short of other people willing to pay him.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > The current president often has a deep dislike of the former president and entities perceived as close to him This is not necessarily true. The Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas are like one big happy family. Trump is the exception because he pissed off everyone, but even he used to be friendly with the Clintons. Anyway this misses the point: in general, the system of buying political favors only works when political favors are repaid, and everyone operating in that system knows it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tootie 6y ago

Carter has taken speaking fees and Clinton runs one of the most successful charitable orgs in the world.

_qulr 6y ago
> Carter has taken speaking fees https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127 https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-33... Former President Jimmy Carter "seldom accepts speaking fees," The Associated Press wrote in 2002, "and when he does he typically donates the proceeds to his charitable foundation." > Clinton runs one of the most successful charitable orgs in the world. So does Bill Gates. So what? Clinton also made more than $100 million for himself in speaking fees.