

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during the Seeds&Chips Global Food Innovation Summit on May 9, 2017 in Milan, Italy. (Photo: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images)
Less than a year has passed since he departed from the White House, and former President Barack Obama has already joined the "well trod and well paid" Wall Street speaking circuit, a decision many argued will negatively impact the Democratic Party's credibility as it attempts to fashion a message around taking on corporate monopolies, tackling income inequality, and loosening the insurance industry's control over the American healthcare system.
"This is a really crappy thing to do to the people who poured their hearts into his campaigns and administration."
--Matt Stoller, Open Markets InstituteAccording to a Bloomberg report published Monday, Obama has in the last month delivered two speeches to massive financial firms--Northern Trust Corp and the Carlyle Group--for around $400,000 a pop, and he is slated to attend a three-day conference hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald next week, for which he will make another $400,000.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced a wave of intense criticism following her paid speeches to Wall Street during the 2016 presidential campaign, and later conceded that they weren't politically wise.
Obama, however, doesn't appear to harbor any concerns about the political impact his speeches may have--a fact that could be problematic for the Democratic Party, Bloomberg's Max Abelson notes.
"While he can't run for president, he continues to be an influential voice in a party torn between celebrating and vilifying corporate power," Abelson writes. "His new work with banks might suggest which side of the debate he'll be on."
News of Obama's decision to "cash in" following his eight-year presidency drew significant ire, particularly given his administration's failure to enact sufficient structural changes to the financial system following the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
As Abelson observes, Obama's "Justice Department prosecuted no major bankers for their roles in the financial crisis, and he resisted calls to break up the biggest banks, signing a regulatory overhaul that annoyed them with new rules but didn't stop them from pulling in record profits."
Responding to Bloomberg's report, a Twitter user asked Ryan Cooper, national correspondent for The Week, what a person could do in order to receive $400,000 for a single speech.
Cooper responded with a two-step plan:
Others reacted similarly to the former president's lucrative speeches, noting that given Obama's continued power over the direction of the Democratic Party--which was demonstrated in his successful push for former Labor Secretary Tom Perez to become chair of the Democratic National Committee over Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)--is reason enough for him to abandon the Wall Street circuit.
"This is a really crappy thing to do to the people who poured their hearts into his campaigns and administration," concluded Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute. "Hillary Clinton publicly talking about why she lost [the 2016 election] is far healthier than private speeches to the Carlyle Group."
For investigative journalist Nomi Prins, Obama's Wall Street speeches are indicative of the deep, inescapable influence the nation's largest financial institutions exert over political discussion and policy in the United States.
"Wall Street knows no party," Prins concluded.
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Less than a year has passed since he departed from the White House, and former President Barack Obama has already joined the "well trod and well paid" Wall Street speaking circuit, a decision many argued will negatively impact the Democratic Party's credibility as it attempts to fashion a message around taking on corporate monopolies, tackling income inequality, and loosening the insurance industry's control over the American healthcare system.
"This is a really crappy thing to do to the people who poured their hearts into his campaigns and administration."
--Matt Stoller, Open Markets InstituteAccording to a Bloomberg report published Monday, Obama has in the last month delivered two speeches to massive financial firms--Northern Trust Corp and the Carlyle Group--for around $400,000 a pop, and he is slated to attend a three-day conference hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald next week, for which he will make another $400,000.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced a wave of intense criticism following her paid speeches to Wall Street during the 2016 presidential campaign, and later conceded that they weren't politically wise.
Obama, however, doesn't appear to harbor any concerns about the political impact his speeches may have--a fact that could be problematic for the Democratic Party, Bloomberg's Max Abelson notes.
"While he can't run for president, he continues to be an influential voice in a party torn between celebrating and vilifying corporate power," Abelson writes. "His new work with banks might suggest which side of the debate he'll be on."
News of Obama's decision to "cash in" following his eight-year presidency drew significant ire, particularly given his administration's failure to enact sufficient structural changes to the financial system following the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
As Abelson observes, Obama's "Justice Department prosecuted no major bankers for their roles in the financial crisis, and he resisted calls to break up the biggest banks, signing a regulatory overhaul that annoyed them with new rules but didn't stop them from pulling in record profits."
Responding to Bloomberg's report, a Twitter user asked Ryan Cooper, national correspondent for The Week, what a person could do in order to receive $400,000 for a single speech.
Cooper responded with a two-step plan:
Others reacted similarly to the former president's lucrative speeches, noting that given Obama's continued power over the direction of the Democratic Party--which was demonstrated in his successful push for former Labor Secretary Tom Perez to become chair of the Democratic National Committee over Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)--is reason enough for him to abandon the Wall Street circuit.
"This is a really crappy thing to do to the people who poured their hearts into his campaigns and administration," concluded Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute. "Hillary Clinton publicly talking about why she lost [the 2016 election] is far healthier than private speeches to the Carlyle Group."
For investigative journalist Nomi Prins, Obama's Wall Street speeches are indicative of the deep, inescapable influence the nation's largest financial institutions exert over political discussion and policy in the United States.
"Wall Street knows no party," Prins concluded.
Less than a year has passed since he departed from the White House, and former President Barack Obama has already joined the "well trod and well paid" Wall Street speaking circuit, a decision many argued will negatively impact the Democratic Party's credibility as it attempts to fashion a message around taking on corporate monopolies, tackling income inequality, and loosening the insurance industry's control over the American healthcare system.
"This is a really crappy thing to do to the people who poured their hearts into his campaigns and administration."
--Matt Stoller, Open Markets InstituteAccording to a Bloomberg report published Monday, Obama has in the last month delivered two speeches to massive financial firms--Northern Trust Corp and the Carlyle Group--for around $400,000 a pop, and he is slated to attend a three-day conference hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald next week, for which he will make another $400,000.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced a wave of intense criticism following her paid speeches to Wall Street during the 2016 presidential campaign, and later conceded that they weren't politically wise.
Obama, however, doesn't appear to harbor any concerns about the political impact his speeches may have--a fact that could be problematic for the Democratic Party, Bloomberg's Max Abelson notes.
"While he can't run for president, he continues to be an influential voice in a party torn between celebrating and vilifying corporate power," Abelson writes. "His new work with banks might suggest which side of the debate he'll be on."
News of Obama's decision to "cash in" following his eight-year presidency drew significant ire, particularly given his administration's failure to enact sufficient structural changes to the financial system following the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
As Abelson observes, Obama's "Justice Department prosecuted no major bankers for their roles in the financial crisis, and he resisted calls to break up the biggest banks, signing a regulatory overhaul that annoyed them with new rules but didn't stop them from pulling in record profits."
Responding to Bloomberg's report, a Twitter user asked Ryan Cooper, national correspondent for The Week, what a person could do in order to receive $400,000 for a single speech.
Cooper responded with a two-step plan:
Others reacted similarly to the former president's lucrative speeches, noting that given Obama's continued power over the direction of the Democratic Party--which was demonstrated in his successful push for former Labor Secretary Tom Perez to become chair of the Democratic National Committee over Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)--is reason enough for him to abandon the Wall Street circuit.
"This is a really crappy thing to do to the people who poured their hearts into his campaigns and administration," concluded Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute. "Hillary Clinton publicly talking about why she lost [the 2016 election] is far healthier than private speeches to the Carlyle Group."
For investigative journalist Nomi Prins, Obama's Wall Street speeches are indicative of the deep, inescapable influence the nation's largest financial institutions exert over political discussion and policy in the United States.
"Wall Street knows no party," Prins concluded.