Ticketmaster’s troubled handling of Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour prompted California lawmakers to spend months cracking down on the ticketing industry — while they enjoyed thousands of dollars worth of free tickets themselves from interest groups, a POLITICO analysis shows.
One assemblymember even appears to have accepted concert tickets to that very Swift tour, which prompted the effort to dismantle ticketing monopolies following backlash over Ticketmaster’s glitch-riddled sales rollout. She was later involved in legislative efforts to regulate the industry that ultimately stalled.
The findings are part of a wider POLITICO analysis of all 120 state lawmakers’ financial disclosures last year that found 66 state assemblymembers and senators received more than $30,000 total worth of tickets. The giveaways included entrance to Disneyland with mouse ears included, a music festival pass to see country music stars like Eric Church, and San Francisco 49ers seats. One of the biggest recipients of tickets to college sporting events also chairs the higher education committee.
I mean, yeah that’s what I’m saying. Do they check to see if they were used? verything is electronic. There are no paper tickmaster tickets.
What’s your point?
Prove the tickets weren’t used. Prove that there is no corruption.
Once you receive those tickets, or whatever the bribe is, it’s a hook. Any amount of “yeah but” here only allows more corruption.
I’m asking if they check to see if the tickets were used. I don’t know why that’s difficult for you to understand.
ticketmaster can check.
But oversight committees or whatever? Good luck with that.
It’s almost impossible to verify those tickets weren’t used. Even if they can demonstrate they were someplace else the entire night- those tickets could have been given to friends or family. Or scalped, or any other sort of thing.
Even if they didn’t use them, they’re still a hook because of how it appears. Once somebody receives free stuff, in what is obviously a quid pro quo, any moral integrity is lost.
How is that so difficult for you to understand?
If they used in anyway then the bribe was successful. If they only accepted it as a “whatever thanks”, filed it in the books, and then never used it then they were not successful bribed.
That’s my point of view on it. Obviously flat out not accepting it would be key though.
I’m not well versed in the area of accepting bribes. But Im willing to learn first-hand. Wink wink
Your point of view is quite wrong.
“Oh you remember those tickets we gave you? That you accepted? If you don’t do XYZ, we’re going to leak that unreceived gifts. And it’s going to look bad because, well you did.”
That’s why they’re called hooks. They start small and inconsequential. Maybe not even wrong. But they get worse over time and you’re stuck.
That’s how corruption works.
The tickets were all listed on the forms they use to report gifts. There’s no leaking the gifts like you’re imagining.
That’s all explained in the article.
Just because they appear on a form doesn’t mean that the public knows about.
A lot of graft gets covered up in bullshit that way.
The forms are literally for informing the public about gifts received.
I now know you haven’t even read the article, so talking to you about this is meaningless since all you seem to want to be is right. I was asking a serious question about the process, not looking to argue about whatever it is youre looking to argue about. Thanks for wasting my time.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
Nice edit after the fact.
You’re obviously emotional about this, and I could care less, I’m just asking about the process.
Chill out homie.