Vox: The debate over Janet Yellen’s speaking fees, explained

01.4.2021 / By Emily Stewart
Vox: The debate over Janet Yellen’s speaking fees, explained

“There’s a lot of work we need to do on the revolving door and dealing with what we talk about as the reality and the appearance of any favoritism based on prior relationships,” said Beth Rotman, director of money in politics and ethics at the watchdog group Common Cause. “Obviously, when we look at the issues of money and politics in democracy, when there are large numbers, there could be potential conflicts,” Rotman said. “All of us are always having to grapple with the balance of special interests and expertise, and there wouldn’t be many appointees who couldn’t show from their past experience some relationships with some of the same industries that they’ve been called upon to work with, because that’s where their experience comes from,” Rotman said. “We have to strike the balance between appointing people with appropriate backgrounds but also ensuring there’s not a revolving door that gives unfair influence to people based on prior relationships.”

It is 2021, and politicians’ speaking fees are back in the headlines. This time, it’s Janet Yellen — President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for treasury secretary — who is in the crosshairs.

On New Year’s Eve, the US Office of Government and Ethics posted the financial disclosure forms submitted by the incoming Biden administration from secretary of state nominee Antony Blinken, director of national intelligence pick Avril Haines, and Yellen. They cover the past two years of their activities. Yellen’s form — rightly or wrongly — raised some eyebrows: It revealed that the former Federal Reserve chair made more than $7 million in speaking fees over that time. The list of those looking for a Yellen appearance includes Wall Street names such as Citi and Citadel and corporations such as Google and Salesforce. …

Assuming Yellen wasn’t sharing insider knowledge or advising banks on how to game government systems, giving a relatively benign talk isn’t all that different from, say, signing a high-dollar book deal. But she doesn’t seem keen on releasing the speeches, which the Biden team say were largely question-and-answer sessions (some public) where she had no prepared remarks. And regardless, that public officials can make this much money to talk feels, well, icky.

“There’s a lot of work we need to do on the revolving door and dealing with what we talk about as the reality and the appearance of any favoritism based on prior relationships,” said Beth Rotman, director of money in politics and ethics at the watchdog group Common Cause. …

“Obviously, when we look at the issues of money and politics in democracy, when there are large numbers, there could be potential conflicts,” Rotman said. …

“All of us are always having to grapple with the balance of special interests and expertise, and there wouldn’t be many appointees who couldn’t show from their past experience some relationships with some of the same industries that they’ve been called upon to work with, because that’s where their experience comes from,” Rotman said. “We have to strike the balance between appointing people with appropriate backgrounds but also ensuring there’s not a revolving door that gives unfair influence to people based on prior relationships.”

See More: Executive EthicsEthics & Accountability