California lawmakers got ticket freebies as they cracked down on Ticketmaster
politico.com
politico.com
Do people not desire to live ethical lives? Why are we all so twisted and selfish?
The standard wasn't "avoid conflicts of interest", it was "avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety", which is much more encompassing.
It's immensely frustrating to see as much blatant "appearance of impropriety" among government officials. Gifts of tickets, gifts to supreme court justices, incredible stock market returns by members of congress and their spouses.
Legal donations of tickets worth 30k spread across 66 politicians.
>My hope is that it’s always been like this and we are simply more aware now / the public is fighting back.
I think this is better than it has ever been. Again, these are reported legal donations below a threshold set by law.
Meanwhile, in other places you have politicians literally sell positions to to others and their office when they vacate.
Things used to be so, so, so much worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
Don't get fooled into pessimism by the treadmill of progress. The fact that all of this information is available and gleaned by public filings is in itself a testament.
These are "elected public officials". They are technically not "government employees".
Which subjects them to a $590 limit [1].
[1] https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/public-officials-and-employees...
Not really. The article notes that’s what the elected claims in a filing. Unfortunately, Reuters didn’t attempt to value the ticket.
Yes, that's the "in theory" bit.
But it’s not. If I lie on my tax filing, I’m not respecting the law, in practice or in theory.
> If I lie on my tax filing
But what if you don't lie? Do we know the real value of those tickets and if realistically it's close enough to the nominal value to consider the rule was respected at least on paper?
Not that I put too much faith in "politicians", or in the ethics rules around them but at the very least leave some room for uncertainty in there.
Those rules and the ethics training people go through are not for the people who are most likely to need them. They're the ethics equivalent of homeopathy. Look also at leaders who very visibly receive "gifts" and then in an impossibly long string of coincidences the trail of evidence is destroyed (see Ursula von der Leyen). Others are actual as-deternmined-by-a-judge criminals but still hold leadership positions in the field they committed the crime in (Christine Lagarde).
If they don't get the ticket, a family member will. Or they'll win it in a raffle they never knew they participated in. There's a never ending list of ways to not illegally circumvent any of these rules.
I think it’s safe to say a Taylor Swift concert ticket is worth more than $590.
> they don't get the ticket, a family member will. Or they'll win it in a raffle they never knew they participated in
At that point you accept the gift and don’t disclose. See: Menendez.
It's very possible that's what it cost the organization giving the ticket; given it comes "from the San Francisco 49ers" and it's in their stadium, they likely don't pay market price for theirs. Valuation can be weird for "these are free to us and the general public can't even purchase them" at times.
True. But were there any tickets to that concert that sold below $590?
I'll admit it's insidiously clever to use a concert ticket as speculative currency. I sure do hope that loophole gets closed later, if it's not already closed.
These forms require disclosure of value. Not production cost.
Unlike WoTC nor Konami, Ticket aster was stupid enough to also host this secondhand market, so in some ways they can set "trading values" and benefit from it. I think that's ultimately going to be its achiles heel.
Nobody's likely to say this is corruption, because nobody is envious of your exclusive tour of a gravel quarry.
Once it's established that that's not corruption - there will be some travel expenses. Can they have someone pick you up and drive you to the mine? Pay for your stay in a local hotel? Can it be a good hotel?
Now what if instead of a quarry, an entertainment venue would like to give you a tour?
Your partner may not be able to accept $50, but their hospital absolutely would accept a check for $51 million.
As is usually the case, different laws apply to Congress and the Senate. I believe it's $100 for House members and $250 for senators. of course, there are also political "donations."
There's no actual direct connection to Ticketmaster or Stubhub themselves - the 49ers giving tickets away to Santa Clara bureaucrats does not actually strengthen Ticketmaster's legal position in any way.
It's really more a problem with the $590 gift limit itself, and the actual link to Ticketmaster is hyperbole to make you click.
Call them.
If someone actually wanted to do something, they'd either have to show that they are a donor (but at that point you may as well donate to their opponent during primaries) or truly organize and become an advocate (but at that point you may as well run for office).
Personally, I'd love to run on a campaign financing reform platform, but there is just too much inertia, and the existing marble cake federalism makes it even more difficult.
I’ve literally worked to amend legislation as a rando who called in on issues. Few times at the state level. Twice federally. Most electeds are stretched thin; calling out an issue could cause a staffer to dig into it where they previously wouldn’t have. (Also note: these are state offices.)
On the other hand, I’ve watched numerous bills die on the vine because overworked reps noted no voters picked up the phone or wrote in.
> at that point you may as well donate to their opponent during primaries
You’re trying to guide other electeds’ attention to the issue.
> I'd love to run on a campaign financing reform platform
This is probably the most-common ex-politico pitch out of Silicon Valley.
It's one of the prime fundraising seats in California due to the Tri-Valley (Danville, Alamo, Orinda, Lafayette, Blackhawk, San Ramon), and the local GOP collapsed after Catherine Baker quit due to Trump and increasingly unfavorable demographics.
> I’ve literally worked to amend legislation as a rando who called in on an issue
Yeah, but there's a difference between someone like you who actually has the potential of becoming a donor and an actual rando making a call.
> This is probably the most-common ex-politico pitch out of Silicon Valley
You ain't wrong XD
> On the other hand, I’ve watched numerous bills die on the vine because overworked reps noted no voters picked up the phone or wrote in.
That is true, but it requires significant organization. Like if a person is able to organize around 20-50 people calling the same day with the exact same message and show that they are in the same district, then you might have an impact.
Sure, calling that representative is unlikely to have an effect.
I’m talking about every other representative going from getting zero calls on this to one. That increases the chances of the bill (in its initial form) being reïntroduced, ethics investigations, calls for investigations, et cetera. Mostly because it increases the chances of the corrupt representatives’ political opponents connecting the dots.
> there's a difference between someone like you who actually has the potential of becoming a donor and an actual rando making a call
Nope, talking back when I had no money. (Having money helps get your call through. But just calling enough to gain familiarity and credibility with a staffer grants as much influence as tens of thousands of dollars federally and thousands locally.)
> if a person is able to organize around 20-50 people calling the same day with the exact same message and show that they are in the same district, then you might have an impact
You may still be over-indexing to federal politics. Zero to one call on a bill or issue can be the difference between a staffer being assigned to look at it or not.
Fair enough. I'd agree, but it would need to be a sustained campaign or it would peter out.
> Having money helps get your call through. But just calling enough to gain familiarity and credibility with a staffer grants as much influence as tens of thousands of dollars federally and thousands locally
I 100% agree. Becoming a known quantity helps.
> You may still be over-indexing to federal politics
Most likely
Not really. You’re trying to light a fire, not stoke it. Sometimes there isn’t kindling. The fact that CA-16 is a donor hotbed leads me to suspect that isn’t the case here.
I mean, if the threshold is that low, Even a well placed social media post can potentially garner enough support. Don't even need an influencer. Just a decent pitch and easy contact info.
Only particular issue is that CA is divided into 52 regions, so we may not all be calling the same rep.
Do not, under any circumstances call it corruption or bribery, those words have been replaced!
You’re conflating civics 101 actions. Lobbying is non-cash. Campaign contributions and PAC contributions are cash but not personal. All of the above are related to free speech.
Gifts are personal. That is what this article describes. Companies can legitimately provide gifts to electeds; think of sending samples to a committee considering regulating your company. This obviously doesn’t look like that. But playing dumb with basic civic terms doesn’t advance the conversation. (And if you legitimately don’t understand the difference between these terms, it shouldn’t take more than an hour to educate yourself.)
What ruling?
Generally, no, accepting gifts in exchange for official actions is illegal (and punished) irrespective of whether payment is made up front or in arrears [1].
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/us-senator-robert-menen...
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States
The only thing the Supreme Court decided in that case was whether that specific statute encompasses a gratuity theory. That’s illegal for federal officials under a different statute that was not invoked in this case.
There will be different state laws, but the federal law is particularly toothless at this point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States?wpr...
Untrue per the “legal citations” section of your own article.
Scope was narrowed. But in the two times it was tested the precedent ultimately resulted in a conviction (Menendez) or upholding of punishment (Cash for Kids).
Just because someone has been caught doesn't mean the law isn't significantly weaker than it should be. Menendez is a good example for this. This isn't the first time he's been brought up on bribery charges, it's the second. The first was dropped because of the McDonnell ruling.
Really, you pretty much have to be the dumbest most corrupt politician imaginable before you are caught in this law's net. McDonnell shows what bribery can look like and it's pretty egregious.
McDonnell was hosting and publicly promoting products from Star Scientific while receiving lavish gifts from them. Rolexs, loan, vacations, etc. Do you think if something that would harm Star Scientific came across McDonnell's desk he wouldn't act in their favor? Yet because he doesn't specifically say "I'm doing this for you guys" it's legal.
That's why the law is toothless. So long as a politician isn't an absolute moron like Menendez, they are free to accept "gifts" from anyone for anything. They just can't then turn around and write down "Oh, ok, I'll make sure to pass bill 123 for you"... like Menendez did.
I agree. But toothless means toothless. The snare still catches.
The law needs to be tighter. But to do that we should be able to agree that the current law is weak. Not toothless. If it’s toothless, there is no point clamping down.
I'd count these gifts/jobs given after the official retires the same. To that end, a generous pension wouldn't be out of line imo.
Under federal law, as applicable to federal officials, there’s a distinction between bribes and gratuities. Both are illegal for federal officials, under different statutes. There is also a federal law that makes it illegal to pay bribes to a state official. But there is no corresponding federal law making it illegal to pay bribes to a state official, though most states have their own gratuities laws. This distinction between bribes and gratuities is well established in the law. Bribes are about actual corruption. Gratuities are about the appearance of corruption.
A bribe can be prosecuted whether the payment is before or after the official act. But there must be some proof that the payment influenced or was meant to influence the official act. Paying a Christmas gift to your mailman is not a bribe.
What happened in the recent Supreme Court case is that federal prosecutors prosecuted a state official under the federal bribery statute, where the official was paid for consulting services after allegedly steering government contracts to a trucking company. The prosecution could have tried to prove that the contracts were steered in anticipation of the later consulting work.
The prosecution, however, chose not to proceed on a bribery theory. It asserted that the statute (which is titled “bribery”) applied to gratuities as well. And when the jury was instructed on the law, the jury was specifically told that it did not need to find that the official act was influenced by the anticipation of receiving future consulting business.
All the Supreme Court decided was that specific statute did not cover a gratuities theory. It sent the case back to the trial court; the government can now choose to retry the person and this time try to actually prove bribery.
It’s a jumble caused by well-placed concerns around money in politics being written about by misinformed journalists [1]. Then the term gained political cachet on the left and, more recently, far right, which propagated its mis-use.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_State...
I used meals, but there are lots of other hidden bribes. A common bribe is donate to my favorite charity - in some cases the CEO of the charity is the politicians brother in law (the is somewhat obvious) - but even if the charity is legitimate the donation can still be a bribe if the politician really believes in the cause.
Ticket master of course can give someone a ticket with a face value of $49 - even though the show is sold out and the real street value is over $1000 (from the few scalpers you can find).
It is all bribery, plain and simple.
> “If I send money to a legislator’s campaign account, I get a thank you note. If I attend a reception, I get a handshake. If I take them out to lunch or dinner, I get a conversation,” Schnur said. “But if I get them tickets for a concert or a basketball game, I now have a friend who takes my phone calls.”
I mean, sure this should be tracked and forbidden… although it’s nothing compared to e.g. what you get for showering millions on a PAC dedicated to electing a specific politician.
However, if lobbying is just a sad reality of modern society, I'm pretty much forced to not be bothered by lobbying for a cause that I am in favor of (crackdowns on monopolies).
How much has Ticketmaster spent on lobbying in the past?
You’re conflating wildly-different subjects. This article is about gifts, which are personal and the closest thing in our system to bribes. (They become bribes if traded for official acts. This article seems to describe bribery.)
Lobbying is a blanket term for communicating with electeds. If you’re against lobbying you’re against being able to call your elected. Lobbying, i.e. bottom-up political communication, is inherent to democracy.
the overlap between 'gifts' and 'lobbying' is significant, and the latter term is often used euphemistically to describe exactly that overlap
Source? Most federal electeds are prohibited from accepting gifts from lobbyists [1]. (Meals are capped at $50. Yes, most electeds take these limits seriously.)
> is often used euphemistically to describe exactly that overlap
This is a reflection of the state of civic education in our country. Someone who cannot differentiate lobbying (paid to reimbursed to pro bono) from gifts from bribery is almost entirely lobotomised from being able to wield one of the most basic civic powers: assembly.
[1] https://ethics.house.gov/content/gifts/prohibited-lobbyist-g...
A Taylor Swift concert ticket from Ticketmaster obviously isn’t in that grey area.
Ideally we want our electors to have information so that they can make informed decisions about the law.
If new legislation would bankrupt bluegill inc., you would want your legislator to know that is a consequence. The lobbyists is who tells them that.
Law is made in an information poor environment where few of the consequences are understood. I think that most of the people that object to lobbying don't understand this.
Wish I could fund a bill hitman.
>but most of the time she is the expert on what is really going on in the real world.
Sure, but they are inevitably influenced on what to say or not say by the ones funding her. Conflict of interest. I'm guessing if she finds out about some inconvinient truth that's she's not necessarily free to lobby for the truth. She's representing a company, after all.
In many cases because they once worked for them. (I tend to support a cooling-off period for electeds and staffers.)
On wining and dining, the limits are usually $50. If you go to the D.C. lobbying haunts, you’ll notice that number coming up in specials.
Most lobbying is actually advising the client, not the elected.
> what most people think of when they say lobbying, not Joe Schmoe writing an email or two every four years
What about the ACLU or EFF?
I’m not arguing against your characterisation of the popular representation. I’m arguing that representation is wrong. To the absurd point that it disempowers those who hold it.
Oh that makes me feel better. They are limited by $x, so why not spend Y million dollars subsidizing some establishment so they can sell "gifts" for $X?
>What about the ACLU or EFF?
Do they use their money to lobby millions to politicians or for proper signal boosting and PR to make the populace aware? I'm not a fan of my money going towards "gifts" either. Ideally these orgs simply help make issues aware and the voters do the rest.
Accepting gifts is risky, they are often forbidden or at least need to be reported.
It is much easier to accept legal bribes - donations, speaker invitations, PAC support. Professional lobbying often includes legal knowledge that allows to offer such bribes legally.
Literally what this article is about.
> legal bribes - donations, speaker invitations, PAC support
You’re conflating wildly different things. Donations, to a campaign or a PAC, are not personal. These are money in politics. But they’re to a campaign and decently scrutinised.
Speaking engagements are part of the revolving door that is much closer to gifts and, as you correctly point out, corruption.