Sometime later this year, former President Obama will receive a speaking engagement fee of $400,000 from Cantor Fitzgerald, a Wall Street investment firm, to speak at health care conference they are holding.
Many liberal and conservative media outlets have criticized Obama, who while POTUS, openly credited Wall Street for many of our countries economic problems. Many of Obama’s critics view this as him cashing in, being hypocritical of the values he supported while President.
What say you?
I’ve been to a number of these types of conferences and seen Bill Clinton, George Bush, Tony Blair, etc. deliver the keynote speeches. They typically last about 45 minutes including a short question and answer period, and are moderated by someone from the hosting firm. The remarks made by the speakers are not controversial, they usually include a small amount of attempted humor, etc. The reason they command such high fees is because it drives buzz for the attendees to come to the conference, i.e. it’s part of the marketing cost for the conference.
$400 grand is probably about right for a speech from an ex-President. I mean those private schools that the girls attend don’t give out free tuition.
I don’t think it is hypocritical to condemn an institution for having unethical practices while receiving payment for services you’ve provided them.
Also, for all we know Obama plans to spend the whole time telling everyone in the room off rather than kissing their ass. People should wait to see what he does before calling him a hypocrite.
Well I agree it’s probably not hypocritical since I doubt he’s going to spend his speech recanting all his criticisms. Especially since this is a health conference so I imagine Obamacare will be his focus.
However, I also don’t think there’s going to be any “wait and see”. We’ll probably get the same amount of information as we got about Hillary’s speeches: Zip.
I mean, I like Barry, but I’m not happy to see him cashing in with the Wall St money machine.
That said, it depends on how he uses the forum (or perhaps, though to a lesser extent, how he uses the money).
If he can use his speaking time to sway the minds of the super-rich to invest in the health and welfare of the nation, it’s all good by me. (Although, honestly, that still seems like an obscene amount. He better remember to tip his waiter.)
I wouldn’t describe it as hypocritical per se and it isn’t as if he is in a lobbying or influence peddling situation, but it is disappointing that Obama has followed the path of former presidents by enriching himself through politically powerful industries by giving the appearance of approval. Even if he spends the entire speech berating them and donating the money to consumer advocacy he’s still acting as a lure for the conference itself and giving the activities within the patina of legitimacy even if the discussion turns to how to best fleece the public. Imagine if he gave a speech for the Tobacco Merchants Association or the American Petroleum Institute; regardless of the content of the speech, just granting his name for promotional use would be ethically dubious.
As for the former president needing or deserving to use his reputation to earn money to keep his family in an accustomed style, he will certainly have a cup overflowing with opportunities to serve on the boards of corporations and non-profits, consulting on community organizing, authorship, and if nothing else works out, he could return to his roots in Constitutional law which he could now teach with the unique perspective of his personal experience. Or, he could take a left turn and do some stand up.
It isn’t hypocritical but I don’t think it’s a good idea. This has become customary for ex-Presidents and there are dangers connected with the practice. There might be a temptation for a President not to come down too hard for example on Wall Street while he or she is in office, knowing that lucrative speaking engagements later on might be put in peril. I don’t think there is any quid pro quo in this instance but some news stories are pointing out that Obama as President didn’t go after business malpractice as strenuously as he could have done and that fact coupled with this speaking fee creates the appearance of impropriety even though none exists.
Patronage for services rendered. Obama and Dems have always been two-faced about Wall Street and I don’t see that stopping anytime soon. About the best deflection they got is pointing out how Trump is enriching himself. What’cha gonna do? Vote third party?
So does this mean you think Republicans aren’t two faced about Wall Street or that Republican ex-presidents don’t cash out on the speaking circuit. I am quite curious.
Which is a problem by the way. People in public service often do not make a lot of money, Obama’s salary was $400,000 a year. This deters people from joining public life and also encourages corruption. Not that Obama is going to be corrupt, but he will have two kids college soon, entering middle age for him and his wife and I think one of his elderly inlaws in still alive, all in all, the most financially demanding time of his life.
He will take these opportunities. Didn’t Trump proposed ban on post service lobbying jobs get criticized for this reason? That he was banning the only possible post government job for many
I am not a huge Obama supporter but I don’t think it is bad at all. Being a President is one of the hardest jobs in the world and also financially taxing while they are in office if they weren’t already very wealthy. The President makes less than many other professionals and has insane demands placed on their personal finances while in office. They have to pay personally for most White House amenities including parties, their own groceries, clothes and most everything else that isn’t part of official state business. I know the people reading this from the ghetto aren’t very sympathetic to that type of thing but most Presidents spend at least as much as they are making just to have the job.
They are going to have to make it back at some point. It doesn’t really matter if it is speeches for Green Peace, Goldman Sachs or book deals to me as long as they aren’t engaging in corruption. Obama isn’t an elected official anymore. He can give a speech to whoever he wants for whatever price they are willing to pay as far as I care. Everyone reading this can too for that matter.
I’m unsure what point you are tying to make. Obama is not taking a job as a lobbyist. As for him needing to make money, I think he and Michelle can live an OK lifestyle on the $65M advance they are getting for their book. I have no problem with what Obama is doing, but let’s not pretend he “needs” the money.
You make my point for me. A former President has little salary and lots of earning potential. The temptation to act in a way which will maximise the latter might be reduced if the former is increased substantially. Say he is paid 2-2.5 million a year and slightly less as pension. Just how much the Presidential upkeep cost anyway. The increment is peanuts in comparison.
This applies to public servants generally not just the President.
How much does an ex-president’s earning potential really depend on their actions in office? What actions could Obama have taken that would have made Wall Street cough up more for a speech, or would have made him undesirable as a speeker?
And if $65 millions for a book isn’t enough dough for him, do you really think he’d change his actions as president if he made 20 million over eight years instead of 3.2?
Making elected offices more profitable is just as likely to make the holders of them rig the system as much as possible and pander to the special interests that will get them re-elected as it is to make them independent of post-service earnings. If money is what motivates you, why not do both?
Personally I think we should pay the President, and possibly Congress a lot more. They’re very underpaid for their level of responsibility, and paying them more would reduce the incentive to be corrupted by this sort of thing. I want the people to be their primary employer, not corporations. It would be a tough sell, though, because it would look greedy for them to vote themselves higher pay.
Unfortunately, for many people there is no amount of money you could pay them that would prevent them from wanting more money, and that certainly applies in spades to politicians.
As for Obama, now that he’s out of office I don’t see any issues with him doing the speaking circuit like everyone else.
Obama. The guy who let Wall Street off with zero accountability for the 2008 and continued to pour eye watering sums into the banks. He could not have done more if he had fellated each CEO personally.
Disagreed. The system you have now is that payoff is delayed until you are out of office. If you pay them well within office then that reduces the risks of corruption. Won’t end corruption, but that does not end until the robots take over.
I still don’t see what that has to do with the topic of this thread. Should Obama be criticized for his $400K gig on Wall St? You seem to be making some unrelated remarks about lobbyists, which Obama is not one of.
That is nonsense. People who willingly participate in corruption will do so on top of any salary it’s possible to pay. If congressmen were scrambling to make ends meet you’d have a point, but the salary for US congressman puts his or her household in the top 10% of households even if it’s their only income.
I have no problem with Obama making a speech for any amount of money he can charge. However for anyone on the left side of the center line of US politics that gives him a pass for it is a hypocrite. I not much care for Elizabeth Warren, but I did see in the news this AM she is on quote to say she is “troubled” by it. Good for her, at least she is consistent to that.