Glass-Steagall repeal had broad bipartisan support and was an act of congress that Clinton signed. I think it's kinda preposterous to think that Clinton pushed

Glass-Steagall repeal had broad bipartisan support and was an act of congress that Clinton signed. I think it's kinda preposterous to think that Clinton pushed this bill past both houses or might have vetoed if he didn't expect to get paid speaking fees from Citi years later. More likely, he supported it because he thought it was a good idea at the time and Citi hired him to speak because he was very influential and knowledgable about economic policy. They've also given loads of speeches for public health groups, environmental groups, colleges, etc. More like they are supporting people who are ideologically aligned to their interests rather than anything resembling a quid pro quo. It's an extremely low bar for what you could consider corruption. Maybe coziness at worst. Like would these policies simply not have happened without speaking fees?