Bought and paid for

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/01/congress-stock-trading-trackers-pelosi/

It tries to imply wrongdoing but shows no actual evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

RE: the bolded bit: this shows a misunderstanding of basic economics. The money that person pays doesn't come from thin air, the person got that money directly or indirectly from the general wealth of the nation. You yourself said it about zero sum games, their wealth comes from you and everyone else.
Also, as Shadowy Man said, if she gets a little wealthier it doesn't have a significant effect on the nation and its people, whereas decisions by Supreme Court justices affect everyone in USA, and often adversely, as they have recently.

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

 

[bilby]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

The cost to the performer is only $0 if they don't expect the show to be sold out, and are giving away a ticket that they couldn't have otherwise sold.

If they could have sold the ticket for $X (had they not instead given it away for $0), then it cost them $X to give it as a gift.

 

[Gospel]

The fucker is corrupt as shit,

I thought you were talking about Nancy Pelosi for a brief moment. The only difference I see between her and Thomas is that there are actually insider trading laws she should get charged for, but (so far as I'm aware) supreme justices can take all the shit they want. Legally.

So spare me all this liberal media drama and the big pony show over how corrupt Thomas is (which he no doubt is).

Clean up Pelosi first if you want to have some credibility. Her corruption is actually unlawful and starring everyone in the face.

You have been asked before and you have yet to demonstrate any insider trading done by Pelosi. Please do so now or drop the derail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/01/congress-stock-trading-trackers-pelosi/

About 500k more results on google as well.

And this isn't a derail. Pelosi is by far more damaging to the majority of middle class America than Thomas could hope to be. That is because stock trading is a zero game which means when she gains her unfair profits, those profits by definition have to be coming from someones elses 401k balance. Pelosi knows even before some CEO's which companies will be affected by new laws from congress. It is about as unfair as you can get that she hits the trough like a pig in advance before anyone else knows what is going to happen.

So at least when Thomas takes a nice cruise vacation it is someone else who is paying for it. It may be corrupt as hell.....but at least its not coming out of MY retirement 401k investments.

Didn't McDonnell v. United States (2016) make corruption prosecutions more challenging? Without conducting any research. I'm fairly certain Clarence (and the rest of the team) didn't object to it. By that standard, considering Clarence's gifts, there must be a clear link between the benefits received and a specific exercise of official governmental power. I suppose the fact that he benefited from that ruling isn't sufficient proof.

Edit: I'd wager there was an increase in his gifts post that 2016 ruling.

Edit 2: Added what I was replying to. Also would like to add that all government officials benefit from that ruling. Including Pelosi. It doesn't necessarily mean they are guilty of anything; I'm just saying that one of them definitely has a more significant impact than the other.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

The cost to the performer is only $0 if they don't expect the show to be sold out, and are giving away a ticket that they couldn't have otherwise sold.

If they could have sold the ticket for $X (had they not instead given it away for $0), then it cost them $X to give it as a gift.

Again, that is assuming they don't reserve a small quantity of tickets to begin with for many shows. Also, $4,000 <<< Millions.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

The cost to the performer is only $0 if they don't expect the show to be sold out, and are giving away a ticket that they couldn't have otherwise sold.

If they could have sold the ticket for $X (had they not instead given it away for $0), then it cost them $X to give it as a gift.

I would imagine, though I could easily be wrong, that an artist holds back a fixed number of tickets for every show to give out at their discretion. Had someone not received those for free someone else would have. The artist likely isn’t expecting to sell those.

I could be wrong. But it would seem you’d need to hold some back to give them out rather than try to find them after the show has been selling tickets.

 

[bilby]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

The cost to the performer is only $0 if they don't expect the show to be sold out, and are giving away a ticket that they couldn't have otherwise sold.

If they could have sold the ticket for $X (had they not instead given it away for $0), then it cost them $X to give it as a gift.

I would imagine, though I could easily be wrong, that an artist holds back a fixed number of tickets for every show to give out at their discretion. Had someone not received those for free someone else would have. The artist likely isn’t expecting to sell those.

I could be wrong. But it would seem you’d need to hold some back to give them out rather than try to find them after the show has been selling tickets.

Sure, but doing so costs you the value of those tickets. Regardless of when you decided to accept that cost.

It costs you nothing ONLY if you could not ever sell those tickets. If someone out there would have paid for them if you had put them up for sale, then not selling them costs you what that someone would have paid.

Economists call this "opportunity cost".

 

[Ford]

RE: the bolded bit: this shows a misunderstanding of basic economics. The money that person pays doesn't come from thin air, the person got that money directly or indirectly from the general wealth of the nation. You yourself said it about zero sum games, their wealth comes from you and everyone else.
Also, as Shadowy Man said, if she gets a little wealthier it doesn't have a significant effect on the nation and its people, whereas decisions by Supreme Court justices affect everyone in USA, and often adversely, as they have recently.

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

This reminds me of the time we had Naomi Judd on our show when The Judds were out promoting their big reunion tour. The tickets were priced at $300 IIRC, which back in the late 90s was absurdly expensive, but people were willing to pay. She started taking calls from fans (and the phones were ringing off the hook) and telling them to "hang on the line, honey, we'll get you tickets to the show."

We had maybe 3 or 4 pairs of tickets to give away, and said "look, we can't give all these people tickets." She shot back "it's my show, these are my fans, and I'll give tickets to whoever I want!" True to her word, she stayed on the line after our show and gave tickets to everyone that got through on the phone. If they asked for 4 tickets instead of a pair, it didn't matter. She had an assistant take down all their info and put them on the list. She probably gave out ten thousand dollars worth of tickets that morning. She was a helluva lady.

Anyway, yes...artists set aside tickets for family, friends, fans, etc. The first few rows at big concerts are filled with "special guests" and precious few regular people who just happened to get in line or online at Ticketbastard. It's been that way for as long as I can remember.

Yet again, that's several orders of magnitude different from the head of a company with a market cap of billions courting (!) a federal judge or two.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

The cost to the performer is only $0 if they don't expect the show to be sold out, and are giving away a ticket that they couldn't have otherwise sold.

If they could have sold the ticket for $X (had they not instead given it away for $0), then it cost them $X to give it as a gift.

I would imagine, though I could easily be wrong, that an artist holds back a fixed number of tickets for every show to give out at their discretion. Had someone not received those for free someone else would have. The artist likely isn’t expecting to sell those.

I could be wrong. But it would seem you’d need to hold some back to give them out rather than try to find them after the show has been selling tickets.

Sure, but doing so costs you the value of those tickets. Regardless of when you decided to accept that cost.

It costs you nothing ONLY if you could not ever sell those tickets. If someone out there would have paid for them if you had put them up for sale, then not selling them costs you what that someone would have paid.

Economists call this "opportunity cost".

Fair enough. Indeed.

But takes the edge off the idea that the cost is being taken because it was given to a Supreme Court justice.

 

[TV and credit cards]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

Gift to federal employees is based on value. Regardless of what it cost the person giving it, the value is the cost at the door. This is where things like receiving a plaque get a pass. It may have cost the giver three hundred dollars to have made but it has no monetary value.

That chart is a little misleading. Thomas has been in the SC for the whole twenty years, and many of the others much less than that (Jackson and O'Connor, especially). So you would expect him to have more on that basis alone. And what is the policy anyway on SC justices' accepting "gifts"? If its a no-no, then aren't they all behaving badly, and its just a matter of degree?

As I recall from my training, government employees for all intents and purposes accept no gifts, it's like $10 value or something very low. It gets a bit convoluted between gifts, company sponsored events (receiving a plaque), and (eating at) social gatherings but I do not remember anything about exceptions for SCJs, congress critters, etc.
As a govt employee, you're not even suppose to accept someone else paying for lunch.

As an NPS employee all I ever got was a "Muffin Monster" ballcap and t-shirt from a company rep after installing the controllers for some new grinders. Fuck me. I missed out.

Exactly. I used to work for a major defense contractor and I recall from our regular mandatory ethics training that we were not allowed to accept gifts or meals from vendors, subcontractors, consultants, etc. Except for maybe a small $10 item like a branded coffee mug or calendar, etc. It wasn't exactly difficult to do. The fact that the SC was not subject to similar conditions is a little baffling.

Note, though, that the SC data is all gifts, not merely gifts from those you only have a business relationship with.

And even those places they only have a business relationship with I can easily see the possibility of some "gifts" that basically quasi-business. Say, inviting someone to speak--cover their costs in a lavish way, the quid pro quo being the place that invited them to speak gets a high status speaker. While this blurs the lines between gifts and income it doesn't imply corruption. What's important is to look at the relationship--is there an overt but harmless benefit to explain it? If not, then figure the real purpose is improper.

It's gifts you benefit from that bear any relationship to the execution of your duties as a federal employee. It has to be completely unrelated to your government employment.

What Thomas is playing with is

"Gifts based on a personal relationship when it is clear that the motivation is not the employee’s official position and gift is paid for personally by the family member or friend"

Nice friends, huh.

 

[ZiprHead]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

The cost to the performer is only $0 if they don't expect the show to be sold out, and are giving away a ticket that they couldn't have otherwise sold.

If they could have sold the ticket for $X (had they not instead given it away for $0), then it cost them $X to give it as a gift.

Again, that is assuming they don't reserve a small quantity of tickets to begin with for many shows. Also, $4,000 <<< Millions.

Bruce Sprinsteen is famous for doing this. Holds back numerous front row seats then sends people to the nosebleed seats to give them to attendees.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

The cost to the performer is only $0 if they don't expect the show to be sold out, and are giving away a ticket that they couldn't have otherwise sold.

If they could have sold the ticket for $X (had they not instead given it away for $0), then it cost them $X to give it as a gift.

Except that contracts typically give them a certain number of tickets for friends.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

Gift to federal employees is based on value. Regardless of what it cost the person giving it, the value is the cost at the door. This is where things like receiving a plaque get a pass. It may have cost the giver three hundred dollars to have made but it has no monetary value.

True, but from a moral standpoint I see this case differently. The reality is performers likely have a set number of tickets set aside to be given to friends.

Note, though, that the SC data is all gifts, not merely gifts from those you only have a business relationship with.

And even those places they only have a business relationship with I can easily see the possibility of some "gifts" that basically quasi-business. Say, inviting someone to speak--cover their costs in a lavish way, the quid pro quo being the place that invited them to speak gets a high status speaker. While this blurs the lines between gifts and income it doesn't imply corruption. What's important is to look at the relationship--is there an overt but harmless benefit to explain it? If not, then figure the real purpose is improper.

It's gifts you benefit from that bear any relationship to the execution of your duties as a federal employee. It has to be completely unrelated to your government employment.

The point is that in a situation like I describe it can simply be your status, not your duties.

What Thomas is playing with is

"Gifts based on a personal relationship when it is clear that the motivation is not the employee’s official position and gift is paid for personally by the family member or friend"

Nice friends, huh.

I fully agree Thomas is royally corrupt. I'm just saying that too broad a brush is being used to define corrupt.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Well, KBJ was gifted four concert tickets from a liberal billionaire (Beyonce) so there's that. Not a big deal to me at all (or anyone I would think), but if its, strictly speaking, an ethics violation for a SCJ to accept gifts from a billionaire, then she has a problem, no? Unless there is some cap on gifts, which I don't think there is now, but maybe someone can clarify.

if Beyoncé has a case in front of the court then perhaps it would be appropriate for KBJ to recuse herself. Would Thomas or Alito recuse themselves when their benefactors have cases before the court? We already know the answer to that.

 

[ZiprHead]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

Gift to federal employees is based on value. Regardless of what it cost the person giving it, the value is the cost at the door. This is where things like receiving a plaque get a pass. It may have cost the giver three hundred dollars to have made but it has no monetary value.

True, but from a moral standpoint I see this case differently. The reality is performers likely have a set number of tickets set aside to be given to friends.

Note, though, that the SC data is all gifts, not merely gifts from those you only have a business relationship with.

And even those places they only have a business relationship with I can easily see the possibility of some "gifts" that basically quasi-business. Say, inviting someone to speak--cover their costs in a lavish way, the quid pro quo being the place that invited them to speak gets a high status speaker. While this blurs the lines between gifts and income it doesn't imply corruption. What's important is to look at the relationship--is there an overt but harmless benefit to explain it? If not, then figure the real purpose is improper.

It's gifts you benefit from that bear any relationship to the execution of your duties as a federal employee. It has to be completely unrelated to your government employment.

The point is that in a situation like I describe it can simply be your status, not your duties.

What Thomas is playing with is

"Gifts based on a personal relationship when it is clear that the motivation is not the employee’s official position and gift is paid for personally by the family member or friend"

Nice friends, huh.

I fully agree Thomas is royally corrupt. I'm just saying that too broad a brush is being used to define corrupt.

What brush would you use?

 

[bilby]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

The cost to the performer is only $0 if they don't expect the show to be sold out, and are giving away a ticket that they couldn't have otherwise sold.

If they could have sold the ticket for $X (had they not instead given it away for $0), then it cost them $X to give it as a gift.

Except that contracts typically give them a certain number of tickets for friends.

That's not an "Except", it's an observation that the cost is "typically" contractually required. It's still an opportunity cost, regardless of obligations, contracts, promises, goodwill, charity, whatever. They sell tickets; If they also give tickets away (or sell for less than the market would bear), then that's an opportunity cost.

It's not a bad thing; I am not making any moral judgement, and if people want to wear a cost to benefit fans, or friends, or anyone else, then they can.

But that doesn't make it not a cost.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note that the concert tickets were to her show, not simply bought on the open market. Basically, "come see me perform". We've gotten such before (but obviously not to A-list things!), very different than simply buying tickets would be. Probably cost $0 for them.

The cost to the performer is only $0 if they don't expect the show to be sold out, and are giving away a ticket that they couldn't have otherwise sold.

If they could have sold the ticket for $X (had they not instead given it away for $0), then it cost them $X to give it as a gift.

Except that contracts typically give them a certain number of tickets for friends.

That's not an "Except", it's an observation that the cost is "typically" contractually required. It's still an opportunity cost, regardless of obligations, contracts, promises, goodwill, charity, whatever. They sell tickets; If they also give tickets away (or sell for less than the market would bear), then that's an opportunity cost.

It's not a bad thing; I am not making any moral judgement, and if people want to wear a cost to benefit fans, or friends, or anyone else, then they can.

But that doesn't make it not a cost.

I do agree it's an opportunity cost but it's baked into how things work. (And I suspect that she couldn't sell them.)

 

[ZiprHead]

Supreme Court overturns ex-mayor's bribery conviction, making it harder to prosecute public corruption law

The high court on Wednesday sided with James Snyder, a Republican who was convicted of taking $13,000 from a trucking company after prosecutors said he steered about $1 million worth of city contracts the company's way.

www.pbs.org

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court overturned the bribery conviction of a former Indiana mayor on Wednesday in an opinion that narrows the scope of public corruption law.

The high court’s 6-3 opinion along ideological lines sided with James Snyder, who was convicted of taking $13,000 from a trucking company after prosecutors said he steered about $1 million worth of city contracts the company’s way.

READ MORE: The Supreme Court ruling that made it harder to convict public officials like Menendez for corruption

The decision continues a pattern in recent years of the court restricting the government’s ability to use broad federal laws to prosecute public corruption cases. The justices also overturned the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2016, and the court sharply curbed prosecutors’ use of an anti-fraud law in the case of ex-Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling in 2010.

 

[bilby]

...convicted of taking $13,000 from a trucking company after prosecutors said he steered about $1 million worth of city contracts the company’s way.

It always astonishes me how cheap these corrupt arseholes are.

Theatrical agents get 10%. Real Estate agents here average 2 to 2.5%.

This guy sold out his constituents, his dignity, and his moral probity; And risked prosecution (albeit he got away with it) for a measely 1.3%.

 

[robnisch]

MSN

Could not find a SCOTUS thread.
And, I hate starting them.
So, this could have a big effect on the way cities deal with the homeless.
Oregon has a lot of homeless, weather is mild in the valley.
This is just more kick the can down the road.