Hacker News Reader

Comment by netcan | Hacker News Reader

"that’s like asking why anyone would pay Beyoncé or the Beatles a million dollars just to play a few songs"

This almost feels like playing dumb. The fact that a legitimate public speaking economy exists and has a dynamic which is not based on payola does not mean that a dirtier side does not. Like other pieces of the money-in-politics puzzle there are legitimate, non-corrupt reasons to hand powerful people 6 figure checks for dropping by. The problem is that it also gives cover to the non-legitimate reasons.

View on HN

> The rewards to attracting the right people in the corporate world can more than justify a six-figure speech. Hedge funds often invite potential clients to events featuring prominent speakers. As one hedge fund manager has explained, if just one client “decides to invest $10 million… the firm will snag a 2 percent management fee—which works out to $200,000” per year.

This on the other hand seems like a very legitimate explanation and parallels the logic behind paying speakers to attend large tech events (like one Salesforce might have, which is mentioned elsewhere in the article).

I guess I think that my point still stands. The existence of legitimate reasons does not rule out or make less likely illegitimate ones.

The main way I think this topic goes wrong is becoming a trial. In a trial you are looking for definite proof of unacceptable (and ideally illegal) misconduct. This is not a trial question, IMO. If you find out the girls have been in the boys room while at band camp, you can probably guess the reasons or at least the outcomes in a large enough portion of cases.

The system needs to be preventative. Elected officials in particular need to have no legal way of accepting this kind of money.

I wonder how much Trump could get paid to Tweet.

Occam's razor implies that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

If you want an example of straight bribery, which is sufficiently far in the past to be non-partisan, try Rick Santorum with Accuweather.

Accuweather employees (mostly the head and his brother) donated $10,500 to his PAC and he subsequently introduced an Act trying to wall off the National Weather Service's data from the public domain.

What surprised me was how low the price tag was. These days, that barely covers a new Submariner.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#National_Weather...

Besides, Beyonce or the Beatles are/were either paid to perform shows (in which case, people except a large return from ticket prices), or are asked by some ultra-rich guy to perform at his party/whatever (in which case it's an extravagant spending).

How's that different than conference tickets to see a speaker or a corporation hiring a big name to speak at their event?

Ehh. Hilary Clinton is far more powerful than the people that invite her to give speeches. More than likely this is a way for a business interest to pay tribute in the hopes that someday she might remember their fealty.

Ummm, yes. A lot of people think that's a problem. That's called corruption. Do you not?

If that's corruption you'd have to disqualify every candidate who's ever had a job.

Sounds like a plan

Beyoncé isn't just Beyoncé. Even when doing a private gig for a billionaire "she" is a huge event employing hundreds of people to install and operate a massive collection of sound, light and staging equipment. She, the person, may take a large fee but "she" the show is something very different than a politician giving a speech at a podium.

Hiring a politician to give a speech at your corporate retreat is like hiring Beyoncé to attend your birthday party and not sing. It may be physically possible, but horribly awkward and everyone outside the party will wonder what was actually going on.

Billionaires do pay well north of $250k to have actors just show up at their party and do a speech though. And Clinton or Trump are probably better, more audience-relevant speakers for certain audiences.

It's not like organizations with $225k to book a Hillary Clinton speaking engagement struggle for access to the government or like they don't have the willingness and ability to funnel money to her or her campaign in ways which don't involve paying market rate for a speaking engagement.

And when they do hire celebs to show up as eye candy they do so as demonstration of their influence and wealth. We on the outside know that Beyonce isn't at the birthday party for her wit. So when a Clinton, a Bush or any other political actor is paid to attend some corporate get-together they are on display as much as beyonce would be at some kid's birthday party. They don't give away any secrets or profound insights at these events. Those who brought the speaker are simply demonstrating their connections and spending power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com