6 ms·

I never understood how speech fees could be seen as anything else than direct bribes.

by Lutzb 3y ago

notahacker 3y ago
Market prices for famous speakers who don't have any conceivable effect on a bank's future regulation are also very high.
- d1sxeyes 3y ago
  “See how we look after folks who treat us well.”
  - notahacker 3y ago
    You're missing the explanation of how the non-political celebs also charging fees in the >$100k bracket "looked after" anyone. If celebrity speakers aren't worth anywhere near that, what are banks and multinationals and industry events bribing ex-sports coaches and actors for? And of course even the politicians get paid by a lot of entities that aren't obvious beneficiaries. Boris Johnson might be as sleazy as former PMs get, but I'm really struggling to understand any quid pro quo with the Indian newspaper or Portuguese TV channel that both paid him north of $250k for a single keynote, and I don't think he ever had much influence on insurance brokers in Colorado either
    - DANmode 3y ago
      You don't think there's quid pro quo in the entertainment industries?! Sheesh. Not even worth debating.
      - notahacker 3y ago
        Sure, loads of quid pro quo in the entertainment industry, ask any lady who ever auditioned for Harvey Weinstein. Never denied it. What does that have to do with banks and boring corporations paying six figure speaking fees to entertainers though? Sheesh.... almost like you don't have any arguments for what Colorado brokers have to thank a former British PM for, never mind what favours Goldman Sachs got from David Beckham or LL Cool J other than a clearly very expensive speech
        sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
        [dead]
        DANmode 3y ago
        Very fitting username. You're not thinking like a hacker at all if you can't concoct theoretical ways that rich and powerful people might find themselves unexpectedly interconnected, and able to non-obviously do each other favors - perhaps even in round-robin fashion at times.
    - d1sxeyes 3y ago
      To be fair, a former PM lends a bit more credibility to an event than some random backbencher, and so you can expect that the market value of having a PM speaking at your event would be quite high. Regardless, on those examples you gave, I don't think it was a Portuguese TV channel, I think it was a global CNN summit which happened in Lisbon (but please correct me if I'm wrong). Also, The Hindustan Times (which is the Indian newspaper I think you're referring to) is also not exactly a small media outlet with a circulation more than double that of the Times of London (based on the most recent numbers for The Times in 2020). Additionally, a significant number of British citizens have family ties with India, and are likely to continue to follow English language news in India, so it's not simply 'some foreign newspaper'.
      - notahacker 3y ago
        I'm not disputing the fact Johnson can draw crowds to overseas media companies or that theyre big enough to afford to pay him, I'm disputing the insinuation of the exact opposite (i.e there's no reason to pay him the big bucks except bribery). From the point of view of there being no UK policy decisions the Hindustan Times' Indian media empire could feasibly have been trying to buy an ex-PM for, it's absolutely "some foreign newspaper". Its not that politicians are incorruptible, it's that people are absolutely willing to spend that much on them for non-corrupt reasons. Some random backbencher isn't getting Johnson or Clinton sized speaking fees.
        d1sxeyes 3y ago
        Except it's well known that there's a 'revolving door' for politicians, especially with the press. Even if there's no reason to SPECIFICALLY overpay Johnson, inflated speaking fees for former politicians helps to keep the door well greased and spinning freely. Johnson himself started his career as a journalist.
        notahacker 3y ago
        And it's well-known celebrity speakers like Becks and BoJo are compensated very highly for speaking at events organised by entities that have nothing to gain from bribing them. This doesn't help those entities pay off their local regulators in any way; it's simply the market price they're willing to pay for the actual speech. I'm well aware of Boris' journalistic career; I've even read some of his waffle. You share his flair for insinuation and missing the point so I wish you good luck with your own campaign to be PM ;-)
OJFord 3y ago
I don't understand how they could be seen as a direct bribe?
- pi-e-sigma 3y ago
  Because no sane person believes that for instance Barrack Obama speech at some random finance gathering is worth a million dollars to pay for. There is no tangible value in such a person saying some random platitudes for a few minutes. Especially when he is not in the office anymore. It's just clever, deferred payment for the favors he did when he was still in power. How can't you see for what it truly is??
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127 https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-33... I really doubt there is a quid pro quo here — “I’ll help you out now in exchange for paying me off after I’m done with the presidency” The value is like the value of any high-end brand — it makes one look powerful.
    - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
      You are powerful because you _have to_ pay a _former_ president to be at your venue? It screams the opposite, actually. Because if you were really powerful you wouldn't need to pay for that. And it would be a sitting president, not the former one with no actual power anymore.
      - phatfish 3y ago
        There is nothing special about most rich/powerful people (there are those that are genuinely exceptional of course and built a fortune because of that), they want the same things as "normal" people just on a different level. Why does some generic reality TV celebrity or "influencer" make money from showing up at a party or turning on some Xmas lights? Surely no one really cares, there are 1000s of reality TV stars. But, it turns out some people do care, so cookie-cutter reality TV celebrity gets paid to turn up. In "high net worth" (for want of a better term) social circles ex-Presidents are the reality TV celebrities, and the people who want them to turn up are rich, so they get paid a lot for the equivalent of turning on the Xmas lights. I suspect its not really about the speech, it's about having them in the same room and giving your guests the chance at a face-to-face meeting. Of course Obama may be more discerning with which events he attends, but the demand for people like him to turn up is certainly real.
smolder 3y ago
It's as if writing "not a bribe" on a check passes muster. But we've also got superPACs, revolving door regulatory capture, legally exempted insider trading... Corruption is mainstream.

I never understood how speech fees could be seen as anything else than direct bribes.

by Lutzb 3y ago

I never understood how speech fees could be seen as anything else than direct bribes.

Market prices for famous speakers who don't have any conceivable effect on a bank's future regulation are also very high.

d1sxeyes 3y ago
“See how we look after folks who treat us well.”
- notahacker 3y ago
  You're missing the explanation of how the non-political celebs also charging fees in the >$100k bracket "looked after" anyone. If celebrity speakers aren't worth anywhere near that, what are banks and multinationals and industry events bribing ex-sports coaches and actors for? And of course even the politicians get paid by a lot of entities that aren't obvious beneficiaries. Boris Johnson might be as sleazy as former PMs get, but I'm really struggling to understand any quid pro quo with the Indian newspaper or Portuguese TV channel that both paid him north of $250k for a single keynote, and I don't think he ever had much influence on insurance brokers in Colorado either
  - DANmode 3y ago
    You don't think there's quid pro quo in the entertainment industries?! Sheesh. Not even worth debating.
    - notahacker 3y ago
      Sure, loads of quid pro quo in the entertainment industry, ask any lady who ever auditioned for Harvey Weinstein. Never denied it. What does that have to do with banks and boring corporations paying six figure speaking fees to entertainers though? Sheesh.... almost like you don't have any arguments for what Colorado brokers have to thank a former British PM for, never mind what favours Goldman Sachs got from David Beckham or LL Cool J other than a clearly very expensive speech
      - sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
        [dead]
      - DANmode 3y ago
        Very fitting username. You're not thinking like a hacker at all if you can't concoct theoretical ways that rich and powerful people might find themselves unexpectedly interconnected, and able to non-obviously do each other favors - perhaps even in round-robin fashion at times.
  - d1sxeyes 3y ago
    To be fair, a former PM lends a bit more credibility to an event than some random backbencher, and so you can expect that the market value of having a PM speaking at your event would be quite high. Regardless, on those examples you gave, I don't think it was a Portuguese TV channel, I think it was a global CNN summit which happened in Lisbon (but please correct me if I'm wrong). Also, The Hindustan Times (which is the Indian newspaper I think you're referring to) is also not exactly a small media outlet with a circulation more than double that of the Times of London (based on the most recent numbers for The Times in 2020). Additionally, a significant number of British citizens have family ties with India, and are likely to continue to follow English language news in India, so it's not simply 'some foreign newspaper'.
    - notahacker 3y ago
      I'm not disputing the fact Johnson can draw crowds to overseas media companies or that theyre big enough to afford to pay him, I'm disputing the insinuation of the exact opposite (i.e there's no reason to pay him the big bucks except bribery). From the point of view of there being no UK policy decisions the Hindustan Times' Indian media empire could feasibly have been trying to buy an ex-PM for, it's absolutely "some foreign newspaper". Its not that politicians are incorruptible, it's that people are absolutely willing to spend that much on them for non-corrupt reasons. Some random backbencher isn't getting Johnson or Clinton sized speaking fees.
      - d1sxeyes 3y ago
        Except it's well known that there's a 'revolving door' for politicians, especially with the press. Even if there's no reason to SPECIFICALLY overpay Johnson, inflated speaking fees for former politicians helps to keep the door well greased and spinning freely. Johnson himself started his career as a journalist.
        notahacker 3y ago
        And it's well-known celebrity speakers like Becks and BoJo are compensated very highly for speaking at events organised by entities that have nothing to gain from bribing them. This doesn't help those entities pay off their local regulators in any way; it's simply the market price they're willing to pay for the actual speech. I'm well aware of Boris' journalistic career; I've even read some of his waffle. You share his flair for insinuation and missing the point so I wish you good luck with your own campaign to be PM ;-)

OJFord 3y ago

I don't understand how they could be seen as a direct bribe?

pi-e-sigma 3y ago
Because no sane person believes that for instance Barrack Obama speech at some random finance gathering is worth a million dollars to pay for. There is no tangible value in such a person saying some random platitudes for a few minutes. Especially when he is not in the office anymore. It's just clever, deferred payment for the favors he did when he was still in power. How can't you see for what it truly is??
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127 https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-33... I really doubt there is a quid pro quo here — “I’ll help you out now in exchange for paying me off after I’m done with the presidency” The value is like the value of any high-end brand — it makes one look powerful.
  - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
    You are powerful because you _have to_ pay a _former_ president to be at your venue? It screams the opposite, actually. Because if you were really powerful you wouldn't need to pay for that. And it would be a sitting president, not the former one with no actual power anymore.
    - phatfish 3y ago
      There is nothing special about most rich/powerful people (there are those that are genuinely exceptional of course and built a fortune because of that), they want the same things as "normal" people just on a different level. Why does some generic reality TV celebrity or "influencer" make money from showing up at a party or turning on some Xmas lights? Surely no one really cares, there are 1000s of reality TV stars. But, it turns out some people do care, so cookie-cutter reality TV celebrity gets paid to turn up. In "high net worth" (for want of a better term) social circles ex-Presidents are the reality TV celebrities, and the people who want them to turn up are rich, so they get paid a lot for the equivalent of turning on the Xmas lights. I suspect its not really about the speech, it's about having them in the same room and giving your guests the chance at a face-to-face meeting. Of course Obama may be more discerning with which events he attends, but the demand for people like him to turn up is certainly real.

smolder 3y ago

It's as if writing "not a bribe" on a check passes muster. But we've also got superPACs, revolving door regulatory capture, legally exempted insider trading... Corruption is mainstream.