AOC = HRC 2.0

She's an elected official in New York. It's rather common for them to get invited to the Met Gala, which does rely on government funding. I doubt she attends the Met Gala if she was a Florida rep. Would it have been a big deal if it wasn't her and she wasn't wearing a dress that read, "Tax the rich" ? No. But considering who she is and her political views, it's going to be a shock to folk who still think it's 2005 or for some, 1985 that a Hispanic woman, who was working at a bar while campaigning, has the temerity to come into a place like the Met Gala, wearing an outfit with that message.

 

And this is where anyone who has contracted for the government or has worked directly for it wonders why this isn't something that falls under this: https://ask.fedweek.com/federal-government-policies/rules-gifts/

The most relevant paragraph would seem to be this:

Not sure a gala falls under the outlined criteria.

It may be that it is "customary" that politicians get invited to this gratis, but it sure seems like a bad idea to accept. Or it would if one was not a politician, but rather an ordinary employee of the government or a contractor.

 

She was unsure. Half the country tells us masks aren't needed

 

This doesn't sound phony

There were several reasons I refused to stay in the “secure location” on the 6th. This was one of them.

Few people want to discuss the reality and implications of this because it’s politically difficult, fraught, and unpopular, but it’s right there. And we need to talk about it. https://t.co/S0ehDQk9Xj

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 15, 2021

 

First, we do not know how she attended.
Obviously, she did not buy a ticket at $65,000 (or whatever).
It is equally likely that she attend gratuitously or perhaps someone purchased the ticket for her.
This could be a campaign contribution or not, depending on how that was done. Regardless, she better disclose how she attended, and, I presume, she is smart enough to do so.

Second, the relevant paragraph you quote is not really relevant.

1. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is not attending in her official capacity as a representative of Congress.
2. It was an organizational fundraiser, which may fall outside of "conference or other event" or may not.
3. It is not a conference where "she was a speaker or panel member at a conference or other event."

Frankly, if she was attending in her "official capacity," it would be much less of a concern (not that it is a concern at all), since that is clearly allowed.

I believe the relevant paragraph (from the page you linked, and thank you for the link) is the next one:

Widely Attended Gatherings
There is an exception to general restrictions on acceptance of gifts that applies to “widely attended gatherings.” The exception permits a waiver of all or part of any attendance fee, as well as food, refreshments, entertainment, instruction and materials “furnished to all attendees as an integral part of the event.”

An agency designee must determine that the employee’s attendance at the event “is in the interest of the agency because it will further agency programs and operations.” A higher standard must be met if the donor has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance of the employee’s official duties, or if the donor is an organization a majority of whose members have such interests.

All authorizations to accept such free attendance have to be in writing and before accepting, an employee must consider whether the government is also providing persons with views or interests that differ from those of the donor.

Since it was a widely attended gathering, there is no conflict or breach if the Met gave her a comp ticket (assuming they did).
I presume that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez obtained written authorization to attend the event.
If she did not, then she is stupid and should be investigated.

It does not seem like a "bad idea" to accept the invite. Politicians on all points of the spectrum, accept invites to attend major events, especially members of Congress.

This was clearly non-political, non-partisan and, but for "mask-gate," pretty non-controversial.

Of course, if there were any credible allegations of "influence peddling" (e.g., the head of the Met asking for something from Rep. Ocasio-Cortez in exchange for the comp ticket), that should be investigated.

Also, it appears that (as of FY 2015), the Met receives virtually zero federal funding. That year, they received $65,000 from the National Endowment of the Arts for support of a single exhibit. That is out of a $360 million budget.

https://www.metmuseum.org/-/media/f...015-report-of-the-chief-financial-officer.pdf

My former organization holds fundraisers every year. At every fundraiser, we offered complimentary tickets to the local judges (mostly state, but some federal), local officials, members of Congress (two were honorees over the years), and other high profile elected officials. Some accepted, some did not.

Since it was a "widely attended gathering" (usually 200-300 people, admittedly fewer than the 500-600 at the Met Gala), there was no breach. Of course the ticket cost was much less (about $300, not $30,000-65,000). That being said, we were very clear to send invites through the proper channels, to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

I have to admit, I always felt a bit strange about the judges, since they could be some of the same judges presiding over cases I and my organization were litigating. Fortunately, that did not happen in the 14 years I was there. We did have a judge on our Board, but he had a blanket recusal order over any cases my organization was handling (as he should).

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "campaign contributions". This is a question of gifts when one is an employee of the government or a contractor for same.

The paragraph is relevant if, indeed, the representative was asked to attend BECAUSE she's a representative, which was intimated by the person I was responding to.

As for #2, I have never taken any training that makes this distinction matter in any meaningful way.

As for #3, that's the problem in the first place: this is a "gift" that exceeds the prohibited value, that is potentially offered because of her status, but for which she is not scheduled to speak or present in an official capacity.

The exception requires that the person speak or present at the event.

By what measure do we call a $65k/ticket event "widely attended"? It was widely attended by people who can afford to blow $65k on one dinner, sure, but that's not a definition of "widely" that most people are familiar with, and surely not the government.

That's an interesting presumption based on nothing.

Since this apparently is a "tradition", I'm sure there will be no sanction. The question is, should there be? If the invite is extended specifically because one holds an office, that definitely deserves additional scrutiny.

Sure. That's not the point, though, because we all know politicians are often above the system they impose on their subordinates.

???

I don't think you understand the rule cited.

I'm happy for your former organization.

The potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest is precisely what that rule (which can be a total PITA for us plebes who, for example, would like to have nice dinners or other social niceties for work colleagues and partners as a reward) is meant to avoid.

 

I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate this further, but I will clarify a couple of points of contention you seem to raise.

I totally agree that the appearance of a conflict of interest in the reason for the rule.
However, actuals conflicts and actual 'influence peddling' that are the problems. Once again, if this existed, it should be investigated.

500-600 people in attendance would constitute "widely attended," I imagine. The cost of the ticket is not relevant or even mentioned, per the link you provided.

My presumption that Representative Ocasio-Cortez sought authorization is not, as you state, predicated on anything concrete, hence it being a presumption. However, the presumption is based on her being a smart politician and someone who is (and should be) pretty aware of the scrutiny she is under all of the time. This is why I agreed that her being photographed "maskless" at the event was a bit of a concern.

I do not want to go into detail, but I do understand the rules, as I have had to comply with them, as demonstrated by my example (and I have many similar examples).

Beyond that, I have no more to say about Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and her appearance at a fundraiser.

If there was something untoward about it and that is released, I may comment further.

 

The cost of the gift is relevant. Free attendance at an otherwise pay-to-play event BECAUSE one is an official (this is a point of contention, and is the main reason I posted what I did), but no official duties are executed constitutes a gift.

We know nothing of 1. her reporting of said gift, if at all, or 2. any of the prior "authorization" that would satisfy the ethics rule on gifts.

 

Maloney was also able to attend because she is an elected official based out of NY.

As for your perhaps part, I've already mentioned on here that it's AOC, she's been getting attention since she won her election.