4 ms·

To avoid the appearance of a quid-pro-quo, at least? Like, the guy clearly doesn't need money, he can do whatever he wants. There is no opportunity cost for hi

To avoid the appearance of a quid-pro-quo, at least? Like, the guy clearly doesn't need money, he can do whatever he wants. There is no opportunity cost for him, he doesn't need to make appearances to put food on the table, the financial difference between a $300,000 appearance at Goldman and a free appearance at a kid's birthday party is essentially nothing to him. If he thinks it's fun to hang out with hedge fund managers, he can do that, good for him, who cares. But them giving him tens of millions of dollars, on top of the tens of millions of dollars that the US government is already giving him, (which by the way is supposed to exist to disincentivize Presidents from seeking gifts or employment after leaving office), is extremely suspicious especially in light of the fact that his crowning achievement in office was deregulating their entire industry.

notahacker 6y ago
The "he doesn't need money" argument cuts against there being any tangible upside to quid pro quo too... Nobody who charges six figure fees for speaking engagements needs the money to put food on the table. Getting paid silly money for a night of patronising some organization you wouldn't otherwise care less about is an ego thing, and plenty of stupidly rich people enjoy their egos being stroked by speaking fees without having any other favours to offer. I mean, some stupidly rich people still enjoy making obviously corrupt manoeuvres too, but that's not necessary to explain why ex-POTUSes and Hollywood stars start being interested in being private party entertainment when the sixth zero is added to the bill. And literally nobody would say "that's fine, he probably just thinks its fun to hang out with hedge fund managers" if the guy who repealed Glass Steagall insisted he was donating his time and reputation to helping hedge funds impress their LPs. Especially not if foreign telephone manufacturers wanting him to do a keynote speech were still willing to offer massive sums of money.
tootie 6y ago
Don't they funnel a lot of that money into their charitable org?

notahacker 6y ago

The "he doesn't need money" argument cuts against there being any tangible upside to quid pro quo too... Nobody who charges six figure fees for speaking engagements needs the money to put food on the table. Getting paid silly money for a night of patronising some organization you wouldn't otherwise care less about is an ego thing, and plenty of stupidly rich people enjoy their egos being stroked by speaking fees without having any other favours to offer. I mean, some stupidly rich people still enjoy making obviously corrupt manoeuvres too, but that's not necessary to explain why ex-POTUSes and Hollywood stars start being interested in being private party entertainment when the sixth zero is added to the bill. And literally nobody would say "that's fine, he probably just thinks its fun to hang out with hedge fund managers" if the guy who repealed Glass Steagall insisted he was donating his time and reputation to helping hedge funds impress their LPs. Especially not if foreign telephone manufacturers wanting him to do a keynote speech were still willing to offer massive sums of money.

tootie 6y ago

Don't they funnel a lot of that money into their charitable org?