Why are government employees allowed to accept gifts? I work in tech and am not allowed to accept gifts over $50, neither is my partner who is a nurse.
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?
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.
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."