It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Harry Reid gets Boxing Tickets for Free

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 30 2006 @ 05:43 PM
Amid the spiralling "culture of corruption" in Washington, D.C., comes revelation of yet another questionable incident. Senator Hary Reid (D-NV) has admitted accepting free ringside tickets for at least three boxing matches in Las Vegas from 2003 to 2005.
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is broadly defending accepting free ringside boxing tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission while the state agency was trying to influence him on federal boxing regulations.

The senior senator from Nevada is also defending several actions he took that benefited disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients and partners as they donated to him.
Reid also had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and a former staffer who went to work for Abramoff.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Our elected representatives should not be accepting free gifts or gratuities, especially when they are from sources who are seeking favorable treatment. In this case, the Nevada Athletic Commision was trying to influence legislation, so this makes the acceptance of the tickets even more suspect and improper.

These ringside tickets can range in price to over a thousand dollars, in some cases, depending on the pugilists.

The culture of corruption is quickly widening it's web to include members from both political parties, including Republican Delay and Democrat Jefferson. So it will be interesting to see if either party has the gall to use it as a campaign issue this fall.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by jsobecky]

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 06:06 PM
Its just doesn't stop does it? These people just cant do their jobs without taken things and being corrupt. They were elected to do their job not get free things from people who want laws passed in their favor. Im getting so sick of reading about corruption and such everyday. Its like there is constantly politicians taking bribes or screwing people out of something. Businesses too.

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 06:23 PM
It's simply amazing. Reid says that he is justified attending these boxing matches because it is his job as a Senator from Nevada to overlook the boxing industry.

I don't question that. I question who is paying for his tickets. He should be able to pay for his own tickets and put them down as a valid business expense.

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 08:53 PM
Is anyone really shocked that politicians are not the most ethical of people? Doesn't matter what party or how big of an office, politicians are human and do stupid things sometimes.

I heard this one at a seminar once: the word Politicians is derived from politics, poly meaning many and tics meaning blood sucking insects.

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 08:59 PM
I'm not shocked really.
But "Pinky Reid", should have asked for seats at least a few rows Back.
I just heard him on the Radio locally, defending his actions.
His particular Party Affiliation will grant him a bit of media forgivness, lucky for him..

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:27 AM
When Tom Delay went down in a blaze, the Democrats were poised to use the "culture of corruption" as a campaign plank in the upcoming elections. Now it seems that they have had this plank yanked out from underneath them, so I would be surprised to see it used this fall.

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:08 AM
If neither side can use 'culture of corruption' as their campaign anti-slogan, we might just have to break down and vote on the actual merits of the candidates!

Quick - Does anyone remember how to do that?

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:09 PM
Just a comment to Mr. Reid should he happen to be browsing on the 'net between rounds. Not as much fun to be branded as it is being the one doing the branding is it?

All this tells us is something most of us knew already. Politicians as a breed, regardless of affiliation are morally suspect. No big surprise here.

All together now: Term limits...Term limits...Term limits.

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:27 PM

Originally posted by seagull
All together now: Term limits...Term limits...Term limits.

I am so glad to hear that from another person.
When these guys get entrenched in office, and get to chair some very powerful sub-committees, it is nearly impossible to get rid of them. They forget how to listen to the people that elected them, and they think they are our betters.

Fresh blood and new ideas are good for the country. Right now, we are saddled with a stagnant government.

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:51 PM
This is a great point you guys bring up. My husband and I talk about voting ALL incumbents out. This would really shake things up! The more entrenched (pardon the racist comment) old white men we have in there year and after year after year, the more we're going to have to deal with the formaldehyde stench of a person who's been sitting too long...

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:08 PM
Watch it there, oh Benevolent One. I am beginning to vaguely resemble that remark

The idea is a wonderful one, if I do say so myself. But implementing it is something else entirely. How do we go about doing this? The entrenched power elite want nothing to do with this idea, as has been demonstrated time and again. Quite frankly, I don't have any idea, save perhaps a citizen backed initiative. My own state of Washington tried that a few years back, and the courts tossed it.

Any of you have any ideas?

Not trying to steal your thunder here, jsobecky

[edit on 1-6-2006 by seagull]

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:20 PM

from seagull

Quite frankly, I don't have any idea, save perhaps a citizen backed initiative. My own state of Washington tried that a few years back, and the courts tossed it.

Can you remember the grounds on which it was tossed out of court? That would be a good starting point.

Don't worry about stealing my thunder, btw, because nobody listens to me. But thanks anyway.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 11:52 AM
All I recall just off the top of my head is that it was deemed unconstitutional. What was really interesting was the powers that supported that decision. At the time, the Republican representitive from my district the not so honorable George Nethercutt, who had unseated the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley. He had run on the term limits issue, and had claimed that Foley had been in DC too long (true enough), but then as soon as he was in office, it was a whooole 'nother story.

Basically, it seemed to come down to just another way to circumvent the stated will of the people.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:26 PM
That sounds about right. A little research turns up the following:

The term-limits movement is alive and well in the United States. Opponents of term limits, the most vociferous of whom live inside the Beltway, had assumed the issue would go away following the Supreme Court's narrow five-to-four decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995) that said the states do not have the authority to limit the terms of their respective congressional delegations. As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out in a brilliant dissent, the majority in U.S. Term Limits simply ignored the clear meaning of the Tenth Amendment. There being no explicit denial of such power to the states in the Constitution, the right to do so "is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.''

Justice Clarence Thomas was exactly right in his dissenting vote, imo. But once again, the voice of the people is ignored.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:35 PM
The only way we will know how the wind blows nowdays is for some state to pass a law imposing term limits again and then get it back to the supreme court. Of course, we could get a nationwide grassroots movement started to make an ammendment to the constitution.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Astronomer70]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:50 PM
Amen to that, Astronomer. That would certainly tell us whether or not all the noise about voter anger is all sound and fury signafying nothing, or an actual phenomenon.

Jsobecky, thanks for finding that. I was having no luck whatsoever, for some strange reason. Probably the fact that I am still learning this whole computer thing, you know keyboards, google search(?), etc...

Apparently, if it isn't expressly stated in the constitution, its forbidden. Huh. I thought it was the other way around. Silly me.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is a great point you guys bring up. My husband and I talk about voting ALL incumbents out. This would really shake things up! The more entrenched (pardon the racist comment) old white men we have in there year and after year after year, the more we're going to have to deal with the formaldehyde stench of a person who's been sitting too long...

It's funny, BH, I was just about to reply to your previous post (where you asked if anyone remembered how to vote on the merits of the candidates). What's funny about it is that I was going to suggest that the first "merit" we all look at should be whether the candidate is an incumbent. If so, with very few exceptions, I will be voting for the other guy/girl.

By the by, I really shouldn't pardon the racist (and sexist, *cough*Cynthia McKinney* cough) comment. My dad is an "old white man," as is my grandfather and my father-in-law. None of these men share any traits with these vile politicians. One is even a tree-hugging hippy who loves to spend his time fighting for property rights for indigenous peoples around the world. We are not of their ilk, skin color be damned.

That said, screw 'em! Vote every one of those bastards out. EVERY LAST ONE. I am a recent transplant to N.C. and I am having a hard time with the fact that, while she seems so nice and innocent, I'm going to have to vote Libby Dole out. But, she's been tainted like the rest of them, and I'm gonna vote her and all the rest out next chance I get. I'd rather have a clean 20 year-old in office than the cleanest of the "experienced" politicians.

We should form a new party. Our platform will be "No Incumbents." What should we call ourselves, and can you get started on the bumper stickers?

I'm imagining, "Vote for the guy next to you in 2008."

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:10 PM
The only thing about the whole issue is . . . that this are only the few things we become aware off when it comes to our elected officials.

But the realy nasty and corrupted stuff going on in the name of gifts and pay offs comes in the name of lobbyist that are tag as friends.

While is rules about how much gifts are allowed from people around is still many exceptions to those same rules.

top topics


log in