Thank you for responding. Yeah, I think thats fair, though I didnt understand the other poster to be saying they were changing policy, more that speakers were charging for knowledge/acess, which is a different thing.

> The idea that all it takes is $300k to change monetary policy in the US is absolutely nutty.

The position that she only gave one speech and it was in direct exchange for a huge change in monetary policy is a strawman.

The funny thing is that I don't actually disagree with you. The entire thesis that "paid speech equals corruption" is silly, though it may be true in some specific situations (and to further steel-man the position, the optics can be bad which can lead to citizens distrusting the motivations of the politician). I, myself, made a comment stating as such [1]. But writing comments impugning HN or HN users for having the audacity for upvoting comments, or having an opinion, lowers the discourse more than the opinion itself. There are also far worse opinions here than stating that paid speeches are corruption.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25746727