Sunday, February 28, 2010

Is Palin in It for the Money?

I just had to post this, especially in light of Tom Tancredo's remarks. This is by Ymchoo over at C4P:

Some people comment that Sarah Palin is in politics for financial gain. This is totally false.

Todd and Sarah have donated about 10% of their income to charity for many years very regularly despite not being well-off, having a huge family burden, and very young children. Compare this to the Bidens and Obamas who only started donating to charity when Obama began to run for national office.

From my experience, people who so selflessly donate so substantially of their valuable income to charity do not place financial wealth as their top priority in life. Why would they want to make money and create unnecessary scandals and then donate to charity? It doesn't make sense.

Her charging a speaking fee is a testament to market forces and the theory of supply and demand. There is only 1 supply of Sarah Palin but plenty of demand for her appearance. She can receive hundreds or thousands of requests for 1 single day appearance. How is she going to decide which to attend and which not to? It is therefore best to let the market decide.

This is just like top surgeons who charge higher premiums for their services so that they are not over-stressed. But she still gives speeches for free regularly such as the Tea Party rallies in Nevada and Boston.

If she were to appear without fee or charge low fees, it could be easily abused. If medical services were provided free for all, illegal immigrants from all over the world would flock to the US and bankrupt the country. Similarly, if Palin were to behave like a socialist and give speeches for free, millions or billiions of requests would overwhelm her. Some might come from Democrats trolls who want to wear her out and waste her time with fake requests. They might fill the events with protesters to embarrass her.

However, if people have to pay a fee for her appearance, they are more prudent in requesting her. Just like those frivolous "ethic charges." Her opponents could overwhelm Alaska's administration because it was free. If people have to pay for filing "ethic charges", they would think more carefully before doing so. Just like her speech in Hong Kong last year when some worried that it was a set-up to humiliate her, but it was very unlikely they would pay her a speaking fee just to embarrass her.

This speaking fee enables Palin to root out phoney requests so that she can focus only on genuine requests. If the event is free, Obama supporters (who are mostly on welfare and have a lot of free time since they are unemployed) may show up to protest her. But if they have to pay a fee just to protest, they may not have the means and motivations to do so. This speaking fee also enables Palin to minimize unpleasant encounters.

The Tea Party Nation Convention was successful because it charged a relatively high fee on attendants. If it was free or had a very low fee, the event would have been flocked with thousands of people and protesters making it a circus. With less and more focused attendants, they can learn more from the event and interact more to make it successful.

Another point I want to add is that charging speaking fees for her appearances enables her to utilize her time more productively.

For example, say an organizer wants her to appear at a function but can only attract a crowd of a few hundred compared to another event where an organizer can market it to a crowd of a few thousand. If Palin has to spend many hours flying from Alaska to the Lower 48, it would be more productive for her to speak and interact with a bigger crowd. The question is how can she determine which event will have the bigger crowd?

The speaking fee can help her screen the crowd. For example, if the ticket to an event cost $50, but the organizer thinks that he can only market it to a crowd of 200 people (total turnover of about $10,000), he decides not to invite her. But if the organizer thinks that he can attract at least 2,000 (turnover of about $100,000), then he may find it worthwhile to invite Palin. In this way, after flying many hours on the plane, Palin can talk to many thousands of people instead of a few hundred.

Also, the organizers are motivated to market the event so that it would be filled with people. If less people show up, the organizer would be losing money. With more marketing and more awareness, more people will show up. If there is low speaking fee, organizers may not work hard to market the event and Palin may suffer because of small crowds and the LSM will seize the opportunity to highlight the empty seats to embarrass her.

Excellent. It may, of course, just be that the Washington Speakers Bureau handles all of it, but those are great points regardless.

"Guest" also added this tidbit -
"Ironic that if she had a bunch of money before she might not have resigned. If you have 250 million, 500k for legal fees really isn't a big deal. If you don't really have any, it is."
Funny how life works.

My two cents: I hate how conservatives, the people who supposedly don't think profit is evil, all of a sudden are going, "Oh, my, she's making a PROFIT!"

People fall for the media's line so easily, it's scary. What, you don't think that Ann Coulter makes millions off of what she does? What about Glenn Beck? etc... All of these people make mega bucks in politics. I don't see the media publishing their speaking fees and their book deal figures every time they mention their names.

Also, if Sarah Palin really wants to get anywhere she has to make some money. It sucks, but money is power. Money talks.

Not to mention the personal aspect of it. She's pretty much the sole breadwinner now (unless Todd keeps up his fishing business). And Trig is going to need a pretty hefty trust fund.

"But this proves she's not just like us!"

Really? If someone offered you a $100,000 you wouldn't take it? Puhlease.

On the speeches - This has happened before. The 'Cuda is in such demand that she simply cannot make every event. And she has her kids' schedules to work around most of the year too. Her opponents in the gubernatorial election complained about the same thing (not speaking fees, but that she couldn't make it to every event they attended).

I expect her to do a blend of speeches for fees, fundraisers for others, free events, etc...

The "Oh, look, she's making money!" meme is obviously an attempt by the media to smear her down-home image, but it's more than that. If Palin gets some real cash under her belt, she's even more of a threat than ever before. I think they're trying to cow her into making less.

People want her. They want her book, they want to hear her speak, etc... And after the mill she and her family have been put through this last year and a half, they've earned every penny.

1 comment:

gamsbo said...

First I want to say I love your site...and your comments on C4P...the post I just read was great, all those that speak get paid...are they would not have signed with the WSB...

I would say they all have deals where they can give a certain percentage of free events but these companies do not sign you not to make money.... and I pray that she gets rich, for what she and the family have gone through..