Does anybody know Mike Bloomberg's speaking fee?

[Recursion]

I can't imagine why speaking fees are suddenly not a question anymore. I literally can't think of a single reason. At all.

[George II]

1. They were only a question once that I recall, and it was a faux issue at that. Plus, a man....

....that is worth $50 billion probably doesn't charge speaking fees.

[Recursion]

3. He charges higher speaking fees than Clinton did

This is one of those rhetorical questions where I already knew the answer.

[pangaia]

12. People that rich only get that way, and stay that way, by "charging speaking fees."

[NurseJackie]

2. Oh, brother! Who cares? Not this again!

I don't particularly like this guy... but he's entitled to make whatever any group is willing to pay him for his "speaking fee". It's completely irrelevant.

[Recursion]

4. So that's suddenly allowed now?

Interesting. What made that rule change?

[DanTex]

5. Because he makes $200K an hour interest on his money.

He doesn't need to give a speech, nor does he care if or whether they pay him. He literally earns that in his sleep.

[Recursion]

6. But he still takes speaking fees

I am pretty sure this board is quite concerned about speaking fees.

[DanTex]

7. That's actually a bit odd that he does.

Maybe it's, like, a formality that they have to pay him? Or like a rudeness thing if he doesn't accept the money, like accepting a beer from someone? Or maybe it's proof that whoever "really wants" him to speak?

I don't know. I don't particularly like Bloomberg, nor do I super-hate him, but I don't think he's really influenceable by "tiny" amounts of money like that.

[Recursion]

8. Didn't you say any large speaking fee was by definition a bribe 4 years ago? (NT)

[DanTex]

9. Umm, no, I was saying the opposite of that 4 years ago. I was trying to get people to vote for

our nominee because whatever speaking fees she took or whatever, she was a million times better than Trump.

[Recursion]

10. Sorry!

Very sorry; I had you mixed up with a different DUer. My apologies.

[DanTex]

11. No worries!

[George II]

13. I wouldn't be surprised, whatever he gets, if he gives the money away. Remember....

...in 2018 he contributed more than $200 million to Democratic candidates all over the country, and he's given more than $3 billion to John Hopkins University, he alma mater. He's also given away more than $6.5 billion in his lifetime.

[Recursion]

16. I guarantee his speaking fees will not be an issue this cycle

I'm angrily making a sarcastic point.

[George II]

19. Ah, got it, thanks.

Now, how about those transcripts?

[betsuni]

14. Good question.

Being paid for a speech as a 100% money back guarantee of corruption used to be all the rage. If I had a nickel for every time I saw "paid speech" as evidence of being forever beholden to the place the speech was given... It made the person evil, even. WE NEED TO SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF BLOOMBERG'S PAID SPEECHES! Those speeches must be Shakespearean if they are paid for.

[Recursion]

18. Right?

I can't put my finger on what the difference between the two candidates is, though... what could it be?

[betsuni]

22. Evidently, the very idea of paid speeches being in any way a problem is now silly.

Why would anyone besmirch a candidate for their speaking fees? How ridiculous to suggest a candidate is peddling influence just by being paid to give a speech about preventing another financial disaster, regulating Wall Street, women in the work place and things like that? Absurd. That would totally be bashing the candidate for absolutely nothing, a complete lie. Who would do that and why?

[NYMinute]

15. It's a Rovian tactic

Find a strong point of an opponent and make it a liability.

[Recursion]

17. It is. And it was very popular here 4 years ago

I can't think of why it would have traction against one candidate and not another. What could the difference possibly be?

[NYMinute]

20. It is quite simple

It is impossible to call Bloomberg corrupt even if he charged $1 million for a speech because people will laugh. The $1 million won't bulge his $17 billion fortune's annual returns let alone the principal.

Sirota knows how to trigger his low-information minions. However, stay tuned for "Bloomberg is not one of us and he will not enact policies for the poor and suffering" narrative - conveniently forgetting that FDR was filthy rich himself.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. I'm not a big fan of Bloomberg but you shouldn't besmirch his speaking fees.

I don’t think anyone could credibly say he is peddling influence. Please don’t bash him.

[Recursion]

23. Oh my God (nt)

[spooky3]

27. Much of this thread reminds me of an old Frasier episode

Where Bulldog, Frasier, and and Roz were at a Christmas party. Bulldog held up mistletoe and said: “Hey, Roz, what’s over my head?”

Roz: “Practically any witty remark?”

Bulldog, to Frasier: “Hey, what did she mean by that?”

[patricia92243]

24. His salary while governor was a dollar year, and he says he

will be paid the same amount for president. So, based on that, I find it downright odd to think he asks for speaking fees.

[progressoid]

25. Speakerpedia says a quarter of a million.

[Hoyt]

26. Hope he gets a million dollars, so tax man takes 40%. Will help pay for healthcare.

[mcar]

28. Gee, what could the reason possibly be?

[Recursion]

29. It's truly mysterious (nt)