Conflict of interest? Public servants and private entertainers are different things.

Actors are paid millions to star in movies that are seen by millions of people. More importantly, actors don't run your country or pass laws which affect you personally. If you don't like an actor, it's easy to not watch his movie. If you don't like a politician, you're stuck with her if she gets elected.

Why do people like you always rush to defend obvious bribery anyway?

Companies are investing into diversity, for example Intel will invest $300M over a few years. Hiring prominent feminist seems like a good way to do that.

Also such event often makes profit on donations.

> "Hiring prominent feminist seems like a good way to do that."

Then you should be looking to vote for Bernie Sanders.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/09/i-am-a-...

In all cased you are buying access. Imagine how much free time the Clintons would have to meet with the average American if they did not do such engagements. Access is influence.

The problems isn't the amounts being paid for speeches. Companies are free to pay whatever they want for speeches.

The problem is the inherent conflict of interest that politicians receiving so much money from private interests creates.