Speaking fees turn prestige into money, and money into prestige. People that are more famous than rich get a little richer; institutions get to associate themselves with those people, and be the kind of place where you might see those people. A simple transaction, if a bit grubby for injecting money into social capital relations.

That all seems fine! Most speaking fee arrangements - even with politicians - seem to me to be in this mode. Are there cases where kickbacks or bribes are given as speaking fees? Sure, elsewhere in this thread there's discussion of no-name doctors (who happened to prescribe lots of Oxycontin) giving lectures to empty halls for hundreds of thousands of dollars seems like a bribe. But that's because the no-name MD is getting _way_ more than the going rate for his status!

When the speaker is already well known, the institution is already getting something for its money, so overlaying an implication of clandestine, speculative (retroactive?) quid pro quo is an unnecessary over-read.

Also, like, Barney Frank is on the board of a bank. Chris Dodd asks 40-70k to speak. Mike Oxley worked for NASDAQ. These 'sinecures' don't seem like they're conditional on passing laws that Wall St. likes.