Politics, Society

Obama Denounces “Special Interests” At The University of Chicago . . . And Then Quietly Accepts $400,000 For First Speech From Wall Street Special Interests

President Barack Obama was at my alma mater yesterday and used his first public statements to decry how  “special interests dominate the debates in Washington.” Then will now be setting off for his first speech . . . to Wall Street special interests at Cantor Fitzgerald, which will pay him $400,000.  This is the same politician who called such banks “fat cats” who exercise undue influence over our leaders.


Cantor Fitzgerald, a bank, has been touting how it is making a killing on health care investments.  Now, the man who created the health care program will be receiving almost half a million dollars for a single brief speech.  It raises visions of Hillary Clinton who cashed in on Wall Street  speeches while denouncing the influence of Wall Street (and later refused to disclose the content of those speeches to the public).

One distinction is that Hillary pulled in only half of what Obama is demanding from Wall Street and powerful interests.

Of course, Obama was criticized for the level of influence of both Wall Street investors and powerful lobbies like the pharmaceutical industry on his policies. He was accused of packing his administration with lobbyists and breaking his promises on limiting the power of lobbies.

What is hilarious about our current system is that we have all of these bribery and influence peddling laws in place.  However, if Wall Street or lobbyists give a former president half a million dollars for less than one hour of speaking soon after leaving office, it is entirely acceptable from a legal standpoint. So long as there is no quid pro quo, there is nothing legally wrong with absurd amounts of money going to a president as soon as he leaves office.  At this rate, just 100 hours of work will put Obama near the $100 million goal surpassed by the Clintons, who virtually walked around with credit card swipers on their belt to facilitate payments from special interests.

In his speech, Obama encouraged people to work on the community level to influence change.  He appears to be starting with the small Wall Street community of influence peddlers in his own quest for social justice.

191 thoughts on “Obama Denounces “Special Interests” At The University of Chicago . . . And Then Quietly Accepts $400,000 For First Speech From Wall Street Special Interests”

  1. Turley Makes Stuff Up when he states Obama negotiated his fee. For all I know the bank simply offered the fee right off and Obama simply accepted.

    1. True. But then we can apply to you the same: You also Make Stuff Up for all you know.

      1. It seems President Obama was well within his ability to not accept such a large fee. But obviously he did not decline it.

        There is a negotiation. He agreed to offer his speaking services in exchange for a payment. It is a basic offer and acceptance as taught in “contract law 101”.

        The problem with this type of soft-corruption is that a sitting president can effectively do the bidding of a particular corporation or person with little more than a “hint hint nudge nudge, say no more” and after leaving office receive windfall payouts under the guise of “speaking fees” which serves as the payola that is legally approved.

        There is a fundamental difference between a speaker who gives a speech to an organization to help with its charitable efforts, charging only nominal fees such as transportation and expenses. When it approaches four hundred grand for an hour’s speaking and other sundries it becomes more than speech but rather payback.

        The hypocrisy is truly clintonian in this case. Here President Obama denounced essentially corporate fat cats and then submits himself to be richly rewarded. It harkens back to Hillary Clinton’s damning contradiction that was brought forward from email leaks where she commented on the advantages of having two sets of policy, one for public consumption and the other for donors and wealthy interests through back channels. Under this strategy, she can decry Wall Street but behind closed doors she established to them beforehand that this was only lip service to please the masses and that the “truth” was she was working with Wall Street for their benefit. But in fact the real truth was that she was working only for her own self interests and she used anyone she could to get what she wanted, as evidenced by how she sold out her country on so many occasions.

        But this argument is in the real world only academic because the test used by shallow minded people to determine if a particular act performed by a politician is corrupt or not is decided not by probable cause, but instead by how strongly they fawn toward and adore the politician or his or her politics. It is for this reason why corruption cases should not be decided in the court of public opinion but rather independent courts of law.

        Alas, we will not soon find that current members of legislatures in the US are so altruistic that they would prevent the windfall speaking fees for present and past elected officials because they too would relish in jumping on the gravy train themselves. Because in some part the decision to go into politics usually involves ambition and power and money more often than not follows. That is why corruption is so endemic in politics worldwide.

        1. Well put. The corruption in Washington politics runs deep and wide. Being elected to Congress is a good gig if you can get it and keep it — and profit from it once you step down. The Clinton’s should be made examples of because they are corrupt to the core and disgusting people to boot. The voters who supported Hillary Clinton should have their heads examined. She’s not only corrupt to the core, but dishonest to the core and incompetent to the core. Disgusting. America did the right thing in this election. Without a doubt.

        2. $5000.00 would be a generous estimate of what Obama’s speech could reasonably be worth to the bank, then the other $395,000.00 are clearky a bribe paid in arrears for favours granted in government.

    2. David B. Benson – speakers have standardized fees for their speeches. Usually they do not negotiate.

  2. It seems lawyer Turley is innumerate. 400,000 is only 80% of the way to half a million.

  3. Music:

    I don’t know much about history.
    Don’t know much about geography.
    One and one and one is two.
    Its a wonderful world if you can be.

    And I just hate to be an A student.
    What I’d like to be….
    I’d like to be a ex politician.
    With ties to thieves….
    etc

  4. Since we all knew this kind of BS was going to happen, it’s hardly worth noting. Professional politicians are much the same no matter what party they hail from and no matter how low they stoop it doesn’t surprise me anymore. They call themselves “public servants” but they, for the most part, are in it for themselves.

  5. Your favorite TV show is Fox and Friend. I”ll bet you have sexual harassment in past.

  6. Maybe his post-presidential memoir will be titled, “The Audacity Of Hope: How To Make $400,000 an Hour Exhaling in Banker Filled Rooms”.

    1. or “The Audacity of Hubris: Perpetrating a Fraud on the American People Like Never Before And Getting Away With It Because of My Friends in The Media” Obama sickens me to this day.

      1. And MILLIONS of others. Make no mistake about it. This man, Obama, is a FRAUD. And he damn well knows it. He, like the Clinton’s, is missing a SHAME gene. They know no shame. So they will never, ever go away. Sociopath is the medical term.

        1. Sociopath is a common term. Not used by the medical professionals.

          1. Then I will amend my comment to say that the common term to describe Hillary and Bill Clinton IMO is: Sociopath – applies to the both of them. Would it be incorrect to also call them Psychopaths? Seems appropriate in my view.

  7. As Professor Turley has pointed out it’s not illegal for Obama to get payments from making speeches. So long as he doesn’t do “pay for play” like the Clintons. The irony does not affect Obama or his base in the slightest – probably not even registered as they live in their own well-heeled bubble.

    And if someone had the temerity to point it out he’d probably have a good laugh at them

    1. The people that hang around golf courses too much seem to get greedier and greedier. Can’t imagine Bernie on a golf course.

          1. Never mind, motion to dismiss followed, if unsuccessful, by hearing.

    2. Only because he really has nothing to get paid for unless for his library. The Clintons mastery of acquiring money (how much do they need) isamazing, and sad.

    1. Presidential pensions were not instituted until around 1958. Supposedly, Pres. Hoover did not need the money, but accepted the pension so as not to address Truman, who was fairly impecunious at that point. Mr. and Mrs. Truman were the first to sign up for Medicare, and, yes, they could benefit from it. AFAIK, the first instance in recent decades of a president accepting an honorarium was the Nixon-Frost deal, and Nixon had overdue legal expenses. In the public atmosphere of that era, Nixon was untouchable in academe (Duke faculty raised a ruckus when Terry Sanford reached a tentative understanding to accept Nixwon’s donated papers for an archive), and any speaking engagements he had would have had to have been in strictly confidential settings. The Nixons also gave up their security detail in 1986. I’m not aware that any of his successors (or Lady Bird Johnson) ever did that. (Post-presidential security details were not offered until 1965; do not believe Truman or Eisenhower ever had one, and they were w/d from Mrs. Kennedy and her children in stages over the period running from 1968 to 1975). I think Johnson or Nixon might have been the first to have an appropriation for office expenses in retirement. Gerald Ford was the first serious buckraker (and was taken to task for it in the press after a time).

  9. Pingback: Obama Denounces “Special Interests” At The University of Chicago . . . And Then Quietly Accepts $400,000 For First Speech From Wall Street Special Interests |
  10. Pingback: Obama Denounces “Special Interests” At The University of Chicago . . . And Then Quietl y Accepts $400,000 For First Speech From Wall Street Special Interests | Freedom & Liberty Blog

  11. WOWser: jealousy, hate, envy, and more. For starters he was the POTUS, but now is not so what influence can he provide? And why not write a book? That seems like honest work to me.

    The comments above are far too cynical, crass and hateful for a blog of this supposed repute.

    1. I applaud negative comments about Obama. Do you see Trump going to the Capital? Not Obama during potential shutdowns. How anyone could look at the debt piling up and insist we didn’t have a spending problem?

      1. Trump has done more in 100 days to engage with law makers and those in the government by hosting them on the golf course and for receptions, bowling, private dinners, briefing lunches, etc, at the White House, etc, than Obama did in his entire eight years. All we ever heard about Obama for eight years is that he retired at the end of his work day to dinner with HIS family (and that included Valerie Jarrett, etc) or dinner out and about town ‘with friends’ – and that he rarely engaged personally with law makers on the golf course, at the White House, or otherwise. Obama chose to spend HIS free time hosting professional celebrity athletes, Hollywood actors and famous musicians at private parties at the White House, dinners on Martha’s Vineyard, Hawaii, etc. Enough said. Trump has my respect and support as he moves forward. Obama was protected and propped up for eight years by the complicit media. No doubt about it.

          1. Just wait. I will say that in my opinion WE, the country, are in better hands now with Trump than we EVER were for eight years under Barak Obama who was the single most UNQUALIFIED person to EVER reside in the position of President. Trump knows FAR MORE than Obama ever would or could. Obama was ‘handled’ as a ‘puppet.’ Trump is as close to the real deal as we will get. Obama is the biggest FRAUD we may ever have had in the White House. History will set the record straight.

              1. Better to have a President who knows how to make deals and negotiate than one who knew only about community agitating and leading from behind while bowing to other leaders and apologizing for America all over the world. He sickens me to this day.

    1. Anon,….
      If Flynn is being investigated for criminal conduct, his best bet is to hope that the FBI/ DOJ hands out immunity deals as freely as they did in the Hillary email investigation.

          2. Sorry to be so late–but yes, why is Russia any different? We aren’t at war (today) with Russia. You see the thin arguments of these partisans here. The flag-waivers of human rights Saudis have given the Clintons a regular allowance, not to mention nice campaign donations…. Just like Johnny McNut’s $300,000 from Georgia, then thinking it’s a good idea to put American troops in front of Russian tanks there. Yep.

    2. My prediction is that Flynn will end up doing a Petraeus-type plea deal as far as serving time goes, i.e., one that permits the Judge to give him a light sentence, but one that also requires his cooperation.

  14. Is it really so difficult to prove quid pro quo? They are paying for something, and it sure isn’t 60 minutes of his thoughts for close to half a million dollars.

    So what are they getting? An in with the next Democratic candidate? Some pork to be added to the next Democratic bill?

    Or was this payment for past services, like that killing they made in health care?

    This is why we voters are so very tired of the Establishment and their low ethics.

    1. Oh, and someone please tell me again how criticizing Trump for being rich makes sense when Obama and Hillary are both in the 1%, only they got rich off of politics. (There are plenty of things to criticize Trump on, but his wealth is not one of them, given how wealthy politicians become.)

      1. Obama’s net worth is 11 million. Trump claims he is worth 2 billion but who knows since he refuses to release his tax returns. What does he owe and whom does he owe it to?

        2. I have specialized in taxes for more than 30 years, and I have never seen an individual’s tax return that revealed the taxpayer’s net worth. What part of his 1040 do you want to see?

          1. Exactly, FFS! The people complaining about his taxes have no clue and couldn’t read his returns even if he did reveal them.

            1. And Trup’s returns are wrapped up in a business,a large business. All we would get is liberal professors studying and make statements which aren’t true.

                1. Nothing would stop anyone, but Democrats prefer academia. Since most of them hope to end up there. The rich are not the only ones getting credits, etc. I think most of the people active in JT’s blog use tax deductions.

                  The biggest issue I have with Democrats and taxes is off-shore money. The cost to bring it home is, as I remember, 30%. Republicans have tried to get it reduced during Obama’s two terms. But, of course, then they wouldn’t be paying their fair share. Reducing that tax to 15% would encourage companies to bring it home, with the proviso that they hire X numbers of employees here to get that rate. This was a no-brainer, but Obama couldn’t, or wouldn’t, see the benefit.

      2. Thank you. Trump “built” things, contrary to Obama and Warren telling everyone government did.

        1. Are you sure Trump never used government funds to “build things? Actually, he used a huge amount of government assistance in the form of tax breaks, grants and government incentives to build his real estate empire. He received what is often called welfare for the rich.

          1. Joe,
            Since you have a firm grip on Trumps’ finances, then why are you so desperate to see his tax returns. It’s not as if you’re going to learn something you don’t already know, right?

          2. And Trump wants to reform our income tax. Why are the Democrats fighting that?

            1. Simple, Sandi. They are trying to revive Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say NO!” campaign. They insert Trump for drugs.

    2. It can’t be fixed. Influence peddling has been going since the days of Babylon. Empires have collapsed due to the weight of the assorted scams and frauds. For example, France in 1789. They put the courtiers on the guillotine but you can bet your bippy that the peasants who replaced them were just as crooked as the guys whose heads just rolled. The dead guys probably smelled better dead than their replacements did alive, but that is neither here nor there.

      The influence peddling is sort of a “carrot” manifestation of the “stick” which keeps people from snitching on the Mob. The Mob doesn’t have to tell you personally that if you tell the fuzz what you saw, you will end up with cement overshoes. Because if you are a sensible person, you know how the system works.

      Same with politicians. Nobody necessary needs to tell Obama, or Clinton, or various Trump officials, that if they play nice while in office, there will be rewards later on, even if it is after the five year ban. Plus, a lot of what gets bargained for is simply a name of a friendly government employee to help the buyer, or to refrain from hurting the buyer.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    3. They [the wall street firms] are repaying BO for giving them a pass from the finanical fallout. And letting it be known to future past presidents that they will be financially rewarded in “speaking fees” for a “job well-done” while in office.

      1. Juris, I agree. That and as an Byron pointed out, it’s access, which is why the Clinton foundation’s funds are drying up at this time. Clinton wasn’t officially in the govt. either when she had such major speaking fees and funding gifts.

  15. Need to pass law blocking Presidents and Congress for no less than 10 years from this stuff

    1. They should be blocked from lobbying for a certain amount of time but do you think they should be prohibited from receiving fees for speaking also?

      1. Here’s a schema for a federal law: interstate contracts between quondam elected officials and incorporated philanthropies must not incorporate an agreement to pay an honorarium in excess of the result of a formula whose arguments include the mean number of fte employees the philanthropy in question has had in the last 6 years and the nominal compensation per worker in the economy as a whole. You get $22,000, travel, and lodgings to speak at Ohio State, less for smaller institutions. Next year, the limits increase per the change in nominal compensation per worker in the economy (and might change for a given institution depending on the evolution in the size of it’s workforce). If BO wants $400,000 honoraria, he’d be limited to what he could cadge from institutions in his state of residence. If he wants that from foreign institutions, his winnings will be seized at the border.

      2. You don’t think that exorbinate speaking fees are not a form of “payback” or “pay it forward”? If you don’t believe that one of the two exist in this case, please explain why the Clinton Foundation is not doing so well since she lost. Thank you in advance for your sage response.

      3. Isn’t speaking a form of lobbying? It doesn’t have to be, many politicians give commencement speeches. However, their message is future, etc. I agree with the comment it’s just too soon.
        Obama had the blessing of following a Bush (43) and Clinton had a Bush (41). Neither made statements, certainly not derogatory, of their succeeding Presidents. Clinton couldn’t keep his mouth shut and Obama will follow in the same vein, only worse. I spent eight years listening to Obama.
        Please give us a rest!

  16. Obama, in his last days in office, pardoned hundreds and hundreds of criminals who will, now, once again, roam the streets of our cities and towns, posing a threat to those communities. The fable, that we are supposed to swallow, is that these were some small-time criminals, who were unfairly imprisoned for extended periods. Nonsense. The facts do not support that fairytale. While we, the average Americans, are left to our own devices, to protect ourselves from the emptying of the sewers, Obama and his family have no such concerns. The Secret Service is at their disposal, 24/7, and it recently jumped into action when one of the daughters, last week, was stalked by some nutjob claiming that he wanted to marry her. Ya see, one rule for me, another for thee. Create cesspools and war zones in the streets of the US, while, simultaneously, having the ease and comfort of knowing that he, along with his family, are protected. Not too different from grabbing $400,000 from the very bankers he likes to scorn, while railing against the inequalities of the system and encouraging revolt.

  17. Which all proves that bribery, influence-peddling, and graft need not take place in dark alleys and smoky speakeasies, but instead right out in the light of day, in public, in front of everybody, and fully clothed! But this is peanuts compared to the $60 million he will get for his Mein Kampf book. At the very least, The Powers That Be demonstrate that if you play nice while you are in office, they will take care of you when you are out of office.

    As far as another crooked Democrat, how about New York Governor Cuomo:

    How Did NY Gov. Cuomo Make $783,000 From A Book That Sold Only 3,200 Copies?

    A spokesperson for Gov. Cuomo told International Business Times, “This payment was contractual and per the agreement with the publisher.” A spokesperson from HarperCollins said the publisher does not “comment on financial matters relating to our books.” News Corp. did not respond to IBT requests for comment.

    News Corp., in the meantime, was registered as a lobbying client as recently as December 2016, according to the New York State government lobbying database. The mass media company, created and headed by Executive Chairman and former CEO Rupert Murdoch, has a long history of lobbying Cuomo’s office for the passage of bills beneficial to its businesses, as previously reported by IBT.

    Government documents reviewed by IBTimes show that News Corp. and its subsidiary Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., through the law firm Greenberg Traurig, put tens of thousands of dollars behind efforts related to state legislation from the executive branch that affected the media industry, while paying Cuomo book royalties.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-23/how-did-ny-gov-cuomo-make-783000-book-sold-only-3200-copies

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Preet Bharara was investigating Cuomo. Oh well,he was fired and there is no US Attorney in New York.

    2. Hey Squeek, thanks for posting this. Methinks Cuomo will run in 2020 – his latest tactics – raising min wage to $15/hr and providing tuition free university at state schools in NYC is right out of Bernie’s playbook BUT at each signing he is pictured with ghoulish HRC. Another loser/lying Dim.

    3. There’s nothing unusual about Cuomo making $783,000 from his book that sold 3,200 copies. I and many others gladly forked over $400 for each of those 3,200 splendid copies. That means the book grossed $12.8 million, i.e., 3,200 copies x $400 per copy. Thus, Cuomo well earned his $783K fee and his publishers netted around $10 million after expenses. Plus, Al Gore has expressed an interest in optioning Cuomo’s book for a potential documentary, and Gore has already gotten the green light from Harvey Weinstein and Miramax to go ahead with the project. If this has you all very excited, I can hardly blame you.

  18. You do realize he’s not a politician anymore, right? He’s just a private citizen earning money on the free market. To the contrary, you take payments for speeches and then also testify at Congress. Sounds like you have more of a conflict with special interests than Obama does.
    (For what it’s worth, I’m a regular reader of your blog but sometimes choke on the hypocrisy in your writing.)

    1. Bob,

      Obama decrying the influence of special interest in politics, even if he did so for free, is worth commenting on! There is also a larger problem, that is, the revolving public/private door. That’s exactly how we got Obama care which was written by a former govt. employee who went to work at Wellpoint, then wrote the bill as a Senate staffer. War contractors move between public and private enterprise with equal ease as do banking industry officials.

      As American citizens we aren’t taught to understand the degree of blurring which has occurred within the public/private enterprise, yet that blurring is so complete that private entities make our laws and virtually run our govt.. It’s part of the reason that everything is completely out of control in this nation. Obama is no more simply a private citizen who will have no real effect on public lawz than any other powerful, fully connected person who essentially runs our nation (into the ground).

      It’s how we are getting stolen blind. It’s how we are killing other people and our own soldiers in the service of war contractors and the banking industry. It’s how the treasury is stolen to support bankers. It’s how Kelcey Warren gets to be on the TX Parks and Wildlife commission, it’s how pharmaceutical companies get to rip us off, it’s how we can’t label GMO phood, it’s why etc.

      And there’s one more aspect to the whole sordid enterprise-Obama is a war criminal and people still worship him. There is literally nothing that he can do that will keep people from being his worshipers, nothing. How we got to that point is equally disturbing! So yes, it does matter that he’s speaking to certain groups, groups who will get access from his “friendship” and people who will get harmed because of that access while even so, still thinking he is the greatest of men. It’s horrific and sad at the same time.

      3. A most excellent rant! I like GMO phood too. Who says typos are a nuisance? 🙂

      4. Jill,
        I have to say I agree with nearly everything you wrote. Huge problem to have a revolving public/private door and it leads to things from wastes of government money to furthering wars that get people killed for no reason except to make money for defense contractors. I just think that a former president, who is no longer in politics, is doing nothing more than making money on speeches. Who cares that he makes money off of a speech. If George W was keeping profits from his books instead of donating the money, would you be on him for profiting off of drawings of veterans? Lets focus on things like the current president financially benefiting himself. Its just a hot button issue to ignore these current problems we have and continue to slam Obama for not really doing anything harmful. As I pointed out, there’s a lot more potential for harm for a guy like Turley who might make a few thousand on a speech when he also currently is involved in influencing policy. Obviously there’s a huge problem with Trump’s private-public conflicts of interests. Maybe its just easier to rile up the right by insulting Obama, though. Remember, he signed in Dodd-Frank, started the CPFB, and put into place other measures to protect us. As far as modern presidents go, he was the least financially entangled with private enterprise. Now we have the most financially entangled president ever.
        But — what are we going to do about it? Here’s something to get involved in to stop the practice you complain of: https://represent.us/ Take money out of politics.

    2. I was thinking along those same lines. Definitely comparing apples and oranges. Also the inference that he “quietly accepted” the speaking engagement. How loudly are these things typically done?

      1. It’s reasonable to say that it’s Trump’s turn to take the heat, but this incident does bear making as public as possible. It follows so closely the pattern of Bill and Hillary. It would be surprising if Obama doesn’t set up some sort of “foundation” in the not too distant future and then he is off and running to become filthy rich for all the deals he made with the insurance companies, investment firms, banks, etc., etc. that go under the heading, Get Out Of Jail Free.

        Of course, using the office of President to enrich one’s self (whether while in office or the set-up while in office), it’s not a Democrat problem per se as Ivanka Trump could testify when just after Trump’s dinner with Xi Jinping, China (quelle surprise) granted her preliminary approval for three new trademarks for her namesake brand, covering jewellery, bags and spa service, according to official documents.

        But two wrongs don’t make a right and Trump, bless his greedy little soul, at least makes no bones about it. Obama, on the other hand is hoisted on his own petard.

        2. Brooklin Bridge – he still has the community activism going training acolytes from his website to terrorize Congresspeople and the President. You will notice that no Dims are doing Townhalls, only Repubs. The acolytes are taking over the Townhalls and dominating them with their questions. They get there early, get the front seats, etc.

    3. Bob –

      You’re supposed to conclude that JT isn’t greedy like other 1%ers who charge more for allowing fat cats to get a photo of them with the man whose wife might be a huge surprise.

    4. Pardon me Did you say Barack Obama was not a politician anymore? When did he swear off politics? Did I dream that he spoke out to rally Dems to block any threats to his namesake: ObamaCare?

      The definition of POLITICIAN according to Merriam-Webster:

      1 a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

      2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession..
      b often disparaging : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

      Retired as President does not mean one ceases to be a politician. Like it or not, his views will always be viewed through the lens of politics.

  19. JT: You only wish you could command $400k for your speeches. But those $5k and $10k speaking fees do add up after a while.

Comments are closed.