Barack Obama is to be paid $400,000 (£312,000) to speak at a healthcare conference organised by the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, despite his criticism of the finance sector when he was US president.
The fee is nearly double that received by Hillary Clinton, who had hoped to succeed him as president, for speeches at Goldman Sachs and indicates the scale of the potential earnings of the former US president.
Neither his representatives nor Cantor Fitzgerald could be reached to comment on the reports from the US, where he is facing criticism for his decision to accept the engagement.
In 2010, Obama was credited with pushing through legislation that was intended to clamp down on Wall Street. A year earlier he said that he did not run for office to help out “a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street”.
Since the end of his second term he has started to write his memoir – he and his wife, Michelle, are reportedly receiving $60m for separate accounts – and took a holiday with the entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson.
But Obama, 55, returned to the public stage this week to speak at the University of Chicago, where he said he would support future leaders. He told the audience that economic inequality and lack of opportunity, a skewed criminal justice system and climate change must be confronted.
“All those problems are serious, they’re daunting, but they’re not insoluble. What is preventing us from tackling them and making more progress really has to do with our politics and civic life,” he said.
The Cantor Fitzgerald event is scheduled for September, with Obama being described as the keynote speaker at a lunch during the healthcare conference. The firm, which had offices in the World Trade Center and lost two-thirds of its staff in the September 11 attacks, is not known for its Democratic links: Howard Lutnick, Cantor’s chairman and chief executive, is reported to have backed Jeb Bush, the Republican who lost out to Donald Trump for the party’s presidential nomination.
Fox News, which first reported the speaking engagement, quoted Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic political consultant, as saying: “He went on the attack against Wall Street and now he’s being fed by those same people he called fat cats. It’s more hypocritical than ironic.”
However, Obama is joining a long line of former senior politicians to be paid for speeches. Bill Clinton was reportedly paid $750,000 for a speech in Hong Kong to the telecoms company Ericsson. His wife, Hillary, disclosed during her presidential campaign that they had been paid more than $25m in speaking fees since January 2014.
Politico has reported that George W Bush is paid up to $175,000 for every speech while the former presidential candidate Sarah Palin is said to have received $115,000 for one speech.
UK politicians also command hefty fees for speeches. The former chancellor George Osborne – who is not standing for re-election in June – disclosed that he had received more than £500,000 from speeches in the US, including two events for JP Morgan at £81,174 and £60,578 each, last year.
In 2009 Tony Blair received £390,000 for two half-hour speeches in the Philippines, while Gordon Brown has donated fees of about £70,000 for speaking engagements to his charitable foundation.
In these critical times …
… The Guardian’s US editor John Mulholland urges you to show your support for independent journalism with a year-end gift to The Guardian. We are asking our US readers to help us raise $1 million dollars by the new year to report on the most important stories in 2019.
A note from John:
In normal times we might not be making this appeal. But these are not normal times. Many of the values and beliefs we hold dear at The Guardian are under threat both here in the US and around the world. Facts, science, humanity, diversity and equality are being challenged daily. As is truth. Which is why we need your help.
Powerful public figures choose lies over truths, prefer supposition over science; and select hate over humanity. The US administration is foremost among them; whether in denying climate science or hating on immigrants; giving succor to racists or targeting journalists and the media. Many of these untruths and attacks find fertile ground on social media where tech platforms seem unable to cauterise lies. As a result, fake is in danger of overriding fact.
Almost 100 years ago, in 1921, the editor of The Guardian argued that the principal role of a newspaper was accurate reporting, insisting that “facts are sacred.” We still hold that to be true. The need for a robust, independent press has never been greater, but the challenge is more intense than ever as digital disruption threatens traditional media’s business model. We pride ourselves on not having a paywall because we believe truth should not come at a price for anyone. Our journalism remains open and accessible to everyone and with your help we can keep it that way.
We want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has supported The Guardian so far. We hope to pass our goal by early January 2019. Every contribution, big or small, will help us reach it. Please make a year-end gift today to show your ongoing support for our independent journalism. Thank you.
View all comments >
comments (966)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
I suppose this is bad in some peoples' eyes. Can't figure out why though.
It's pretty easy to figure out.
Obama took over after the financial crisis and instead of holding the finance industry accountable, he bailed them out no questions asked whilst doing fuck all to help those affected by the foreclosure crisis.
And now after his Presidency, Wall Street invites him to talk some bullshit for insane wages.
It takes incredibly nativity to not understand why Wall Street is regularly paying politicians to say a few words to them
It's the Mysterons. That's why you can't figure it out.
"It takes incredibly nativity to not understand" - a new way of saying 'being born yesterday' ?
Oh dear...
This really shouldn't come as a surprise.
Obama is on record as saying he would protect economic terrorists on Wall Street from the "pitch-forks" - meaning, by "pitch-forks", the people of America, who were calling their representatives en masse to NOT bail out the banks.
He was always the willing driver on the Wall Street plantation.
Bit he didn't put them all in his cabinet.
I assume this is some kind of wind-up, becasue Elizabeth Warren, Democrat, wouldn't agree with you:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27589-elizabeth-warren-enough-is-enough-with-obama-s-wall-street-appointees
There is far more continuity - Bush II - Obama - Trump - than many people want to admit.
I suppose that is the function of a polyocracy - a plutococracy with some minimal democratic features, and an ideology of meritocracy - that it has to ethically cleanse the Democract opposition periodically and pitch it as some exaggerated alternative to keep the myths alive.
Why the surprise?
What is the cost of a ticket to attend Cantor Fitzgerald event, and how many people are attending it? Without that figure, it is impossible to gauge what fraction of the money that Cantor Fitzgerald event makes is being paid to Obama?
The other figure that would be useful is how much the other ex-policitical leaders are being paid for such speeches.
So, I think the actual question to ask is why is there such lavish events in the Financial and Business sectors that is inaccessible to many. Why is knowledge kept hidden in such expensive quarters? Why are deals being enabled in such exclusive quarters that is not open to public scrutiny in the case of public interest decisions?
Because there's a black guy on Wall St.?
Not sure about "black" specifically, but here are some statistics for white/non-white employees on Wall Street. About 40% are non-white which, for the USA where non-whites are 29% of the population, are very well represented on Wall St.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/wall-street-bank-diversity-2015-8?r=US&IR=T
In respect of "blacks" specifically, I found these links:
http://www.blackenterprise.com/mag/75-most-powerful-blacks-on-wall-street-2/
https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-being-a-black-man-on-Wall-Street
God forbid anyone should be paid for their work.
What work?
You don't really comprehend what sorts of transactions these speeches are do you.
You don't comprehend people being paid for what they do, do you?
Maybe I'll set up a justgiving for myself and you can stick your wages in there in the future.
No he has a considerably better idea than you do. The speeches are guff so that businesses can willy-wave at each other about how exclusive and important their business are, in my dull past running events I used to have to arrange hundreds of these. There's very little else to it.
I think he's selling himself short. He should have a word with the guys covering Blair, Cameron and Osborne. Trust the Euros to corner the market.
Why shouldn't he speak about health care to people in the business? Give the guy a break. He hasn't even made the speech yet, and we don't know that he won't put his cash into a charitable trust.
The question is, why on earth would he get so much money just for a speech.
The main concern is, what links do politicians have with the companies they get vast sums of money from and does a political life only interest some like osborne because of the connections they make with corporations they often go on to work for.
Corruption is often subtle, particularly when it's technically legal but it leads to conflicts of interest where politicians serve corporations rather than the people
Not sure this is the case with Obama - did he have any connection with this company while in office? Anyway it's not surprising he can command very high fees for speeches, even those who think he was a lightweight president still admit he's a wonderful speaker.
He has 8 years experience running the most powerful country in the world. He doesn't do talks frequently. He can charge what he wants and someone will pay that amount.
It is the same with George Osborne. He gets paid so much because he was Chancellor of the United Kingdom. Investment funds feel he has a lot of knowledge which will benefit them and pay handsomely for it. Is he worth what he is paid.. I guess we can wait and see.
I don't get why people get so uppity about what others are paid. You are paid for the skills and knowledge and experience you possess. Apparently Obama is rich in all 3 departments. Good on him.
That legacy is looking real good now ....
It's compensation for holidaying with Branson.
Say one thing.... do another.
He's never said he's again earning $$$. He was a multi-millionaire from booksales prior to being president.
"I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." - Barack Obama
He was referring to the working class obviously.
This would be terrible if it was Tony Blair, but I'm OK with Obama 'cos he is nice.
Racist.
Terrible if it was Tony Blair, and regarding oil after he invaded Iraq on the pretext of removing WMDs. Not exactly equivalent is it?
Is 'nice' a race?
If so, I would like to 'nice up'.
He's a private individual he can do what he likes I admire and Trump would not dare criticise him for making money as a private citizen.
What a foolish way of thinking. If you think this unbelievably exorbitant speaking fee isnt a payment for all his good works as President then you're a moron.
Well, there we are, all fine and dandy that the payments for services rendered come when he leaves office.
Not a bad price to hear a President speak in structured sentences.
He can probably go the whole speech without lying even once, or making outlandish claims about his business empire.
But what about his ratings?
Or doing that stupid thing with his hands.
Its ok, it's Obama, it's not a Tory.
Exactly, it's someone we like so it's ok.
Cognitive dissonance at work.
Why do you like him?
That's about £312,000. To put it into perspective, Wayne Rooney is paid £250,000 a week to kick a ball around for some mediocre football team. Barack needs to make more speeches if he wants to compete.
Yes, but Rooney never posed as the champion of the little guy against the 1%. When Miliband lost the election he went and hung out with Citizens UK. So far, since leaving office, Obama has enjoyed the hospitality of Richard Branson and got himself a lucrative gig speaking to bankers. It's not hard to tell the difference between him and Bernie Sanders.
I think it's naive to ever believe any politician, let alone a leader of a powerful country, is a champion of the little guy. Obama is riding the gravy train like everyone else. It's an obscene amount of money, but these people sold their souls a long time ago.
When did the POTUS compared himself to Wayne Rooney?
It would be more tolerable if the liberal establishment media weren't regularly giving us dumb bullshit about how the Obamas and the Clintons of this world are who the working classes should be excited about.
Whereas of course everyone is excited about Donald Trump, but not in a good way
Don't you feel embarrassed to always have to resort to BUT WHAT ABOUT DONALD to address criticism of Obama or Clinton?
It's really dumb
Why?
Glad to hear and I am sure the money will be put to good use. I cannot wait to buy his memoirs.
How much is the teleprompter operator getting?
How about the speechwriter?
Don t you just love this guy!
Is this journalism, or just a fluff opinion piece by the Guardian?
It's news as the same information is reported elsewhere, Reuters, The Independent, Daily Telegraph, BBC, Daily Mail, the FT.
Why is it troubling you?
It's called "Click Bait"
It troubles me when the Guardian states that:
But doesn't quote or cite any one at all in support of of such a bald statement.
This is terrible. WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE CONSIDER THE POOR BANKS?
But seriously, if you want the former president at your gig you need to pay the asking price. It's not like you can shop around. "Ah, the former president of the USA is too expensive. Get the former president of Mexico instead. It'll be almost as good."
No way, the president of Mexico won't get a visa. Or the Trump administration would demand that the fee goes towards a down payment on The Wall. How about Jacob Zuma? He may have some time to kill for competitive rate.
Or get Duterte. He would even take a break to kill the coke heads in the first row by sheer force of habit.
It is not the size of the fee. more the fact that nobody gives you $400k for nothing. If he receives $400k is because banks sense they can get further access and lobbying presence in Washington..
there are also talks that michelle obama will run for presidency at the next elections. So, her husband gets wined and dined then she runs for president?
I dont mean to single out the Obama, i mean the clintons have done this for the last 20 years. Sadly it is the state of US democracy
By granting new authority and accountability to the Federal Reserve to regulate bank holding companies and large firms.
This is his pay off for doing just that, cementing even further the vice like grip Central Banking chicanery has on the West.
Wow - that's a fraction of the back taxes that 45 owes!
I'll blow smoke up their arses for half that
Sign in or create your Guardian account to recommend a comment