4 ms·

Presidents are different than Treasury Secretaries because historically they became impotent and sought no further office. A bribery scheme is hard to enforce w

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]

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]