Hacker News Reader

Comment by sub7 | Hacker News Reader

Guys hate to be the one saying this, but $700k for speaking fees at this level is really not that much money and certainly not enough to influence someone who thinks in 4 commas.

If Citadel accounted for 70% of all her speaking fees, that would warrant a closer look - this is a move along carry on for me.

View on HN

It's just more appealing to believe in conspiracy theories and that the world is against you.

Wait until these same people find out about various "senior advisors", board memberships, and think tanks!

This isn't ideal but public service isn't a vow of poverty and someone will pay them. What is important (and appears to be the case here) is that they are public and disclosed. Citadel is only 10% of her overall speaking fees over two years. She owes them nothing.

> This isn't ideal but public service isn't a vow of poverty and someone will pay them. What is important (and appears to be the case here) is that they are public and disclosed. Citadel is only 10% of her overall speaking fees over two years. She owes them nothing.

When we give money to someone, there is an expectation of receiving something in return.

Right, she gave a talk in return

How long was the talk? An hour? 700k per hour for a talk? What was so groundbreaking that a public official was paid 700k/hour but didn't say it in public?

Doesn't really matter. She probably told them many things she's said in public. My org has paid just as much for invited speakers to say things I could hear them say on Youtube. $700k is to get her person inside of the room to give an exclusive talk. There are myriad reasons for that, one of which may be you intend to ask her return favors. But that's certainly not the only reason as people here seem to be implying. Other reasons include:

- Because you can: $700k is not a lot of money to these orgs

- Because you have to: if you don't spend the money you lose it in the budget

- Because you want to brag: social media points for you and all your employees (look who we got to meet and you didn't!)

- Because you want to attract new talent: your org is more attractive if you offer these events to your employees

etc.

I think any of these are just as plausible as corruption.

If you give a policeman a cold drink and they accept it, they can be fired.

If you give a judge a slice of pizza and they accept it, they can be fired.

We all understand this. Yet, "speaking fees" are accepted =)

Yea, something in return like speaking and a Q&A.

Yes, they paid for for the speech. You pay a consultant to write software for you, and they deliver software. You pay a public figure for a speech, and they write and deliver a speech.

I know you may object to how much she is paid. However, there are only 15 former chairs of the US Federal Reserve in history, and at the time she was one of 3 living (and not currently serving) ones, the first woman, and Paul Volcker is 92. Based on some basic searches, a celebrity commencement speech fee may run from $50-100K, and I would argue that Yellen's thoughts are far more valuable.

Let's turn this around. What freedoms would you take away from people that wanted to be government appointees? What if she had been an executive of Citadel for a year instead? If she doesn't do speaking fees, Janet Yellen still has a mortgage and bills. Speaking fees are public, have low quid pro quo leverage, and they are disclosed.

This seems to be the best possible arrangement to have qualified people in positions of power.

You're not wrong at all.

But, I think the outrage here is a bit more general. Buying speeches is essentially influence tokens. Any amount and the idea it's happening for personal gain of a government official in America is what frustrates people. It kind of reads as if you're saying 'eh, it's not really that many influence tokens'.

For example, if this amount is a "move along, carry on" for you, I'd be curious to know when you draw the line specifically?

> not enough to influence someone who thinks in 4 commas

According to Wikipedia, her net worth is 16,000,000. (I must be missing some commas somewhere.)

You don't think offering someone 4% of their net worth to speak for an hour could buy some influence?

Just because she "thinks in 4 commas" doesn't mean that she personally is trifled by 700 000$ in speaking fees. If it truly is insignificant then she should be willing to do it for a standard hourly rate, or for free. Clearly this isn't the case.

so you think someone as internationally famous as Janet Yellen should charge the same rate as someone no one has heard of? Let me introduce you to a concept called supply and demand...

There's two possible positions here. Either the sums that Yellen is charging are so insignificant as to not influence her, in which case a pay cut shouldn't change anything for her, or the sums are appropriate for her in which case by definition they are an influence.

its no use arguing with him, he always has to win the argument.

Is it though? Do these companies regularly pay out thousands because they're fools? Most business decisions are made with some return in mind; they must feel in the grand scheme it's worth it-- that they'll make more back. I think it's more foolish to dismiss the very real possibility of bias if she holds this meeting, solely on the basis of 'she makes so much money why would she even care about 700k?'

If I want to attract top employees in the financial industry, who are used to making a lot of money, then I need to offer them something they can't buy. Exclusive talks with people they find interesting is one way to do that. As a company I would put that in my recruitment material. Any company who doesn't do this is now at a disadvantage. They're going to want to get their own exclusive talks now. You want top employees, you have to offer top perks, and you're competing with other very wealthy firms who have the ability to pay essentially unlimited money for said perks. That's going to drive the price of speeches up.

But guys, that is not the problem.

The problem is getting more money than the people they serve just because they happen to be servants of the people.

Yea I’m surprised how quickly HN is jumping on the conspiracy train. This was an expensive employee perk; not a “legal bribe.”

I think it's more about the message this sends than actually thinking there's corruption. We just spent 4 years having our institutions especially those related to corruption torn down by the president. Now seems like a great time to ensure proper procedures are followed, even if they're a bit excessive.

Shouldn't matter if she recuses herself then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com