Dem councilman spent $135K on sports tickets out of needy constituent fund

[RadiomanATL]

D.C. councilmember spent $135K on sports tickets - WTOP.com

WASHINGTON - Records show a D.C. councilmember has paid $135,000 for professional sports tickets over the past decade from a fund that councilmembers typically use to help needy constituents.

The Washington Post ( Records show Evans paid $135,897 for sports tickets from constituent fund - The Washington Post) reports that 31 percent of the money spent from Councilmember Jack Evans' constituent service fund since 2002 has gone to sports tickets.

 

[WillowTree]

Is he going to prison?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Is he going to prison?

Probably not, since he says he gave most of the tickets to poor children, and there seems to be very little oversight of the fund.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No he won't be going to jail...I would bet my house on it.
Instead he will probably be allowed to resign, with likely 6 months pay or more and full pension.
What he did wasn't against the law since the rules have a very wide and gaping hole.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Corruption in Washington D.C. government? Color me shocked.

 

[uscitizen]

Was it really illegal or just an "ethics" violation.

Corruption does not seem to be illegal very much.

 

[Avatar4321]

Disgusting.

 

[ladyliberal]

According to the WaPo story, the fund comes from donations, not from tax dollars, and is to be used to offer “charitable, scientific, educational, medical, recreational and other services”. There also seems to be corroboration that the tickets were being offered to the community. Of course, it would be almost impossible to prove that *none* of the tickets went to cronies or to people Congressman Evans was trying to lobby, and indeed the Congressman concedes that he has used some of the tickets personally.

Far from being illegal, the Congressman's use of the fund seems to be in largely or entirely in line with the fund's stated purpose (attending a sporting event is recreational). Of course I would prefer that funds were used more narrowly on antipoverty measures, and that the regulations were changed to require this.

Evans' use of the fund seems inappropriate and politically embarrassing. However, it is quite common for more prominent political figures to actually use taxpayer dollars on personal expenses, or to cheat on their taxes. Evans' actions are relatively unobjectionable.

 

[RadiomanATL]

According to the WaPo story, the fund comes from donations, not from tax dollars, and is to be used to offer “charitable, scientific, educational, medical, recreational and other services”. There also seems to be corroboration that the tickets were being offered to the community. Of course, it would be almost impossible to prove that *none* of the tickets went to cronies or to people Congressman Evans was trying to lobby, and indeed the Congressman concedes that he has used some of the tickets personally.

Far from being illegal, the Congressman's use of the fund seems to be in largely or entirely in line with the fund's stated purpose (attending a sporting event is recreational). Of course I would prefer that funds were used more narrowly on antipoverty measures, and that the regulations were changed to require this.

Evans' use of the fund seems inappropriate and politically embarrassing. However, it is quite common for more prominent political figures to actually use taxpayer dollars on personal expenses, or to cheat on their taxes. Evans' actions are relatively unobjectionable.

Not to most.

 

[uscitizen]

relatively unobjectionable

I am sure none of his relatives objected.

 

[Conservative]

I'm guessing there is a slight slap on the wrist and a 'please keep better records next time' in his future.

 

[Care4all]

I'm guessing there is a slight slap on the wrist and a 'please keep better records next time' in his future.

No, not even a slap on the wrist for it....cuz apparently it isn't even illegal to do what he did? amazing....

you'd think it would be illegal or even unethical, but it appears this is just run of the mill....there is talk of changing the rules so this does not happen in the FUTURE, but as of today, it's not illegal!

 

[ladyliberal]

According to the WaPo story, the fund comes from donations, not from tax dollars, and is to be used to offer “charitable, scientific, educational, medical, recreational and other services”. There also seems to be corroboration that the tickets were being offered to the community. Of course, it would be almost impossible to prove that *none* of the tickets went to cronies or to people Congressman Evans was trying to lobby, and indeed the Congressman concedes that he has used some of the tickets personally.

Far from being illegal, the Congressman's use of the fund seems to be in largely or entirely in line with the fund's stated purpose (attending a sporting event is recreational). Of course I would prefer that funds were used more narrowly on antipoverty measures, and that the regulations were changed to require this.

Evans' use of the fund seems inappropriate and politically embarrassing. However, it is quite common for more prominent political figures to actually use taxpayer dollars on personal expenses, or to cheat on their taxes. Evans' actions are relatively unobjectionable.

Not to most.

Why not? Are you saying that spending money from a fund intended for recreation on sporting tickets is just as objectionable (or more?) as, say, Congressman Rangel's numerous ethics violations which lead to his formal censure? What about the egregious ethics violations of historical figures such as President Nixon? Do you think all unethical behavior is equally objectionable, or is the formulation "sports tickets = recreation" the most loathsome in your taxonomy? Why do you think "most" agree with you?

 

[Conservative]

According to the WaPo story, the fund comes from donations, not from tax dollars, and is to be used to offer “charitable, scientific, educational, medical, recreational and other services”. There also seems to be corroboration that the tickets were being offered to the community. Of course, it would be almost impossible to prove that *none* of the tickets went to cronies or to people Congressman Evans was trying to lobby, and indeed the Congressman concedes that he has used some of the tickets personally.

Far from being illegal, the Congressman's use of the fund seems to be in largely or entirely in line with the fund's stated purpose (attending a sporting event is recreational). Of course I would prefer that funds were used more narrowly on antipoverty measures, and that the regulations were changed to require this.

Evans' use of the fund seems inappropriate and politically embarrassing. However, it is quite common for more prominent political figures to actually use taxpayer dollars on personal expenses, or to cheat on their taxes. Evans' actions are relatively unobjectionable.

Not to most.

Why not? Are you saying that spending money from a fund intended for recreation on sporting tickets is just as objectionable (or more?) as, say, Congressman Rangel's numerous ethics violations which lead to his formal censure? What about the egregious ethics violations of historical figures such as President Nixon? Do you think all unethical behavior is equally objectionable, or is the formulation "sports tickets = recreation" the most loathsome in your taxonomy? Why do you think "most" agree with you?

the problem, as I see it, would be any use of the fund for 'personal use'. It was a 'constituent fund', which would lead one to believe that it should be used only for constituents. If he admitted even a single use of the fund for personal use, I'd deem that improper, and worthy of some kind of reprimand.

 

[RadiomanATL]

According to the WaPo story, the fund comes from donations, not from tax dollars, and is to be used to offer “charitable, scientific, educational, medical, recreational and other services”. There also seems to be corroboration that the tickets were being offered to the community. Of course, it would be almost impossible to prove that *none* of the tickets went to cronies or to people Congressman Evans was trying to lobby, and indeed the Congressman concedes that he has used some of the tickets personally.

Far from being illegal, the Congressman's use of the fund seems to be in largely or entirely in line with the fund's stated purpose (attending a sporting event is recreational). Of course I would prefer that funds were used more narrowly on antipoverty measures, and that the regulations were changed to require this.

Evans' use of the fund seems inappropriate and politically embarrassing. However, it is quite common for more prominent political figures to actually use taxpayer dollars on personal expenses, or to cheat on their taxes. Evans' actions are relatively unobjectionable.

Not to most.

Why not? Are you saying that spending money from a fund intended for recreation on sporting tickets is just as objectionable (or more?) as, say, Congressman Rangel's numerous ethics violations which lead to his formal censure? What about the egregious ethics violations of historical figures such as President Nixon? Do you think all unethical behavior is equally objectionable, or is the formulation "sports tickets = recreation" the most loathsome in your taxonomy? Why do you think "most" agree with you?

First off this has nothing to do with Rangel or other ethic violations by other politicians. Just because others have made worse decisions and committed more egregious ethics violations does not mean that in this case it is not objectionable.

Secondly, "most" is "most" on this board. As proven by the posts.

 

[ladyliberal]

Not to most.

Why not? Are you saying that spending money from a fund intended for recreation on sporting tickets is just as objectionable (or more?) as, say, Congressman Rangel's numerous ethics violations which lead to his formal censure? What about the egregious ethics violations of historical figures such as President Nixon? Do you think all unethical behavior is equally objectionable, or is the formulation "sports tickets = recreation" the most loathsome in your taxonomy? Why do you think "most" agree with you?

First off this has nothing to do with Rangel or other ethic violations by other politicians.

Secondly, "most" is "most" on this board. As proven by the posts.

I see. I suppose I misunderstood you. You're certainly allowed to judge Evans' actions outside of the context of wider ethical violations by elected officials. However, I had hoped that it was clear from my post to which you replied that I was not doing this.

Also, no offense to anyone in particular, but it would make me very sad if I thought that most of this board was representative of most of humanity.

 

[del]

Why not? Are you saying that spending money from a fund intended for recreation on sporting tickets is just as objectionable (or more?) as, say, Congressman Rangel's numerous ethics violations which lead to his formal censure? What about the egregious ethics violations of historical figures such as President Nixon? Do you think all unethical behavior is equally objectionable, or is the formulation "sports tickets = recreation" the most loathsome in your taxonomy? Why do you think "most" agree with you?

First off this has nothing to do with Rangel or other ethic violations by other politicians.

Secondly, "most" is "most" on this board. As proven by the posts.

I see. I suppose I misunderstood you. You're certainly allowed to judge Evans' actions outside of the context of wider ethical violations by elected officials. However, I had hoped that it was clear from my post to which you replied that I was not doing this.

Also, no offense to anyone in particular, but it would make me very sad if I thought that most of this board was representative of most of humanity.

it would make me sad if i thought i shared genetic material with you as well

let's sing kumbaya, then you can pull the broomstick out of your ass

 

[RadiomanATL]

Why not? Are you saying that spending money from a fund intended for recreation on sporting tickets is just as objectionable (or more?) as, say, Congressman Rangel's numerous ethics violations which lead to his formal censure? What about the egregious ethics violations of historical figures such as President Nixon? Do you think all unethical behavior is equally objectionable, or is the formulation "sports tickets = recreation" the most loathsome in your taxonomy? Why do you think "most" agree with you?

First off this has nothing to do with Rangel or other ethic violations by other politicians.

Secondly, "most" is "most" on this board. As proven by the posts.

I see. I suppose I misunderstood you. You're certainly allowed to judge Evans' actions outside of the context of wider ethical violations by elected officials. However, I had hoped that it was clear from my post to which you replied that I was not doing this.

Also, no offense to anyone in particular, but it would make me very sad if I thought that most of this board was representative of most of humanity.

So because other people do worse you give him a pass?

So someone who murders one person should not be held accountable because Ted Bundy killed more than 30 people? Its the same logic.

 

[Dr.House]

To be honest, I didn't think anyone here would actually try to defend this POS...

I was wrong...

 

[ladyliberal]

I said Evans' use of the fund was inappropriate and that I disapproved of it.

I defended him against charges that he committed a criminal act or violated a particular ethical provision, accusations for which I have seen no evidence.

My point when invoking other bad acts made by politicians was not to claim that Evans' behavior was not a bad act at all. I simply believe that some bad things are worse than other bad things, and that Evans' actions were not as bad as some of his peers' (or for that matter as bad as they were being portrayed). To address RadiomanATL's hypothetical, that means that I do think killing someone is bad (in general), but that it is not *as* bad as killing 30 or more people. Our justice system seems to agree-- someone convicted of killing several people is subject to much stiffer penalties than someone convicted of killing one.