Ticket fairness: Fix it or fail it


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

ticketsOn the surface, the Ticket Fairness Act, pending in the General Assembly, looks like a consumer protection act that hurts the scalpers. In reality, it is exactly the opposite. As written, the law allows venues and ticket agents to transfer to themselves any quantity of tickets to resell at inflated prices.

As with many things in Rhode Island politics, it’s not so much what the bill says as what it doesn’t say. By comparing the RI bill—which is nearly identical to legislation pushed in other states by the dominant ticketing agent, Ticketmaster—to New York state’s law, considered the gold standard for actual consumer protections, we can see how our legislators are foisting upon us yet another thinly-veiled ripoff.

Hot scalper-on-scalper action!

“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There’s also a negative side.”

~ Hunter Thompson

Dr. Gonzo only says this because it’s 100% true. This is a story where there are no “good guys”.

The genesis of this legislation is that Ticketmaster and their cronies (Live Nation and Ticket Exchange) are watching other, equally evil entities (StubHub) make giant amounts of money to which they feel entitled. It’s not that they actually want to protect the general public from getting ripped off. It’s that they want to be the ones that do it.

The amount of money in this shallow trench is stupefying, easily enough to motivate the most heinous behavior. That two gangs would fight over controlling it should surprise nobody.

A ticket to a hot concert at the Dunk can sell for 10 or 20 times the face value. If you can get your hand on 1,000 tickets for $50 and resell them for $500, that’s $450,000 in pure profit for basically doing nothing. That’s roughly half a million bucks for one night’s ripoff.

The RI bill does, in fact, make it much harder for StubHub to get their hands on large blocks of tickets. At the same time, it virtually guarantees that either the venue or the ticket agent will sell themselves large blocks of tickets to scalp at outrageous prices.

Are Johnny and Jenny Music Fan protected in any way? Absolutely not.

How a true entertainment capital handles this

In RI, we have maybe three or four venues that attract shows worth the attention of big-time scalpers. In New York City, that’s one block on Broadway. No other place in the US has more invested in a thriving entertainment sector than New York. Not Branson, MO; not Nashville; not Memphis; not even Las Vegas.

New York state has a comprehensive law to regulate ticket sales and resales that truly protects the general public. This law—Article 25—contains provisions that the RI bill lacks. By adding these provisions to the RI bill, the GA could actually do something good for the people of RI.

Specifically, Section 25.30 regulates not ticket resellers but the original sellers, called “operators” in their law and “issuers” in the RI bill. 25.30.3 states:

No operator or operator’s agent shall sell or convey tickets to any secondary  ticket  reseller  owned  or  controlled  by  the operator or operator’s agent.

24 words; problem solved. We find no such provision in the RI bill, but any legislator could introduce such an amendment.

You know what? Bunk that. It shouldn’t be any legislator; it should be Senator Josh Miller, who somehow is a co-sponsor in the senate. Your Frymaster is actually quite disappointed in the feisty Cranstonian that he could be bamboozled to such an extent.

As a savvy business professional, working specifically in the Downcity nightlife sector, one has to wonder how this multi-venue owner could not see through these shenanigans. And it’s much better for all of us if the question is “how” and not “why”.

Senator Miller, please fix this bill or withdraw your support and act to defeat it.

Addendum: E-tickets

Others on the left make an equally strong argument that the “any ticketing means” provision of the RI bill only serves to let venues and agents control resale by regular ticket buyers. This is true, but not the focus of this post. Interested readers can find the fix for this particular nastiness in NY 25.30 (c) that specifies that ticket buyers must be able to control resale of their tickets without interference by the venue or agent.

 

What does gender bias in the media look like?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

genderequalityRhode Island NOW is proud to be a sponsor of the She Said He Said campaign along with Women’s Fund of Rhode Island to start and continue the conversation on gender bias in the media. During the campaign kickoff event, Celinda Lake, President of Lake Research Partners, presented research on the damaging effects of media sexism and the impact it has on female candidates and their vote count.

Here are what we see as critical takeaways from her research: 

  • Initially, after given a neutral profile of both a female candidate and male candidate, voters were more likely to say they would vote for the woman.
  • Even mild sexist language has an impact on voters’ likelihood to vote for a female candidate and on how favorably they feel toward the woman seeking office.
  • Neutral, positive, and negative descriptions of the female candidate’s appearance all had detrimental impacts on her candidacy.
  • The impact of sexism can be diminished by a strong, immediate response from a female candidate or third party validator.

We can help combat the harmful effects of media sexism by speaking up and speaking out. Who’s we? All of us, voters, advocates, and the candidates themselves—we must speak up when we see sexism and redirect the conversation back to the issues.

What is sexist media? Here are a few examples from She Should Run:

Jean Stothert, Mayor of Omaha

As the only woman in the race, Stothert experienced severe sexism, most notably from a fellow City Council member.  The Councilman was photographed wearing a shirt that featured an illustration of Stothert in a bikini, on a stripper pole, with the words “Jean, quit stripping…off our tax dollars” and “sponsored by: suck my private sector.” Classy. She fought back, stating, “It’s not only demeaning to me, it’s demeaning to women.” She is now the first woman Mayor of Omaha and proof that addressing sexism head-on can turn out positive results.

Jenifer Rajkumar, 2013 Candidate for New York City Council

In an article critiquing Rajkumar’s nonprofit experience, the New York Post ran the headline, “This over-achieving beauty is running for City Council as head of non-profit that’s only skin deep.” This subtle form of sexism focuses on her appearance, specifically her “beauty,” which diminishes her credibility as a candidate by evoking unfavorable gender stereotypes instead of focusing on substantive issues. Even subtle forms of sexism must be addressed.

Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts

Since February 2012, Warren has been battling sexist coverage by the Boston Herald. Name It. Change It. declared, “No other mainstream media outlet has shown Warren such disrespect as a woman running for office. Whether the editorial page of this paper is mocking her age by calling her “granny” or belittling her by calling her Liz or Lizzie, it has become clear that The Boston Herald cannot stray from utilizing sexist vocabulary when writing about Elizabeth Warren even after being called out for it.”

For more examples of sexist media coverage check out NameItChangeIt.org, a nonpartisan joint project of the Women’s Media Center and She Should Run.

Looking Ahead

“One has to consider whether sexist media coverage contributes to the low participation of women in Rhode Island politics,” stated GoLocalProv reporter Kate Nagle at a recent forum on sexism and the media.

Women still only make up make 27 percent of the General Assembly, and few women have run and achieved statewide office. But the picture is not completely bleak. We are making strides. Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed broke the glass ceiling in 2008 when she became the first female Senate President in Rhode Island history. Several women have already thrown their hats into the ring for statewide office; Gina Raimondo is hoping to become Rhode Island’s first female Governor and Nellie Gorbea is seeking the office of Secretary of State.

There are also many women who will be seeking election and reelection in city council and school board races across the state as well as the General Assembly. Several female General Assembly members already know they will be facing challengers to win back their seats. Whether you’re undecided, opposed or supportive of these candidates it is on all of us to defend these women should issues of sexism arise. If they are brave enough to seek elected office, then we should be brave enough to speak up when they are unjustly attacked based on gender.

As the 2014 election cycle heats up in Rhode Island, it is important to remember that the media is a reflection of society. Collectively—with force—we can influence the conversation. Celinda’s research found that even mild forms of sexism can hurt female candidates. She also found that sexism hurts all candidates, not just the women they may be targeting. So it is on all of us, men and women, to be third party validators against sexism in the media and return the conversation to the issues. After all, isn’t our economic future and education system too important to be derailed by sexist bylines?

I hope you will join Women’s Fund of Rhode Island and the members of Rhode Island NOW in becoming third party validators, because the cost of being a bystander is just too high. Be sure to join the conversation on Twitter, check out @WomensFundRI @RhodeIsland_NOW #shesaidhesaidri. We look forward to engaging with you!

Amanda Clarke, the author of this post, is Chair of Education and Outreach for the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Women.

Will Mattiello act to prevent blight and homelessness?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Group bannerFor the past five years, a group of dedicated residents, most of whom are currently fighting foreclosure and eviction from their homes, have campaigned to make banks accountable to Rhode Island Landlord-Tenant law. Currently, banks that take over property make it a practice to evict the tenants who are living there, regardless of whether there is any “just cause” to do so. The RI Landlord-Tenant Act does not permit any other landlords to conduct these “no-fault” evictions, which lead to increased homelessness, blight, and economic stagnation in our state.

So, why have banks been allowed to get away with this for so long? Why are our neighborhoods strewn with abandoned, dangerous, burned-out shells of former homes, while so many sleep in the streets or overcrowded shelters?

It’s time to ask the leadership of the General Assembly why they’ve allowed this travesty to persist, especially when the solution has been presented to them for five years running. The Just Cause bill (H7449, S2659) is going to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday, April 30th. The bill would prevent banks from evicting tenants in foreclosed buildings unless there is “just cause” to do so, just like any other landlord. Before the hearing, we need to make clear to the Committee Chair and the Speaker of the House that this bill must pass this year. It’s time for policy-makers to act on the initiative and needs of the people instead of their own self-interest.

Please sign our petition before the 30th! We need your support to make this bill the priority it ought to be in the statehouse this year!

https://www.change.org/petitions/cale-keable-and-nicholas-mattiello-and-john-edwards-put-just-cause-bill-h7449-to-a-vote#

Kate Bowden, RI Disability Law Center: Some forms of voter ID don’t exist


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

kate bowdenPart of the problem seems to be that many of the legislators in the Rhode Island General assembly don’t really have any idea of what it is like to be poor, homeless, disabled or otherwise marginalized by society. As a result, they jump to easy answers or rely on “anecdotal evidence” or gut feelings when deciding on policy. Consulting with experts and authorities about how changes in the law might affect certain parts of our population takes time and effort, two things our legislators don’t like to expend.

Case in point:

Some of the ID’s being considered for people who need to prove their identity in order to vote do not actually exist, according to Kate Bowden of the RI Disability Law Center. “For example, we represent many people who live in public housing, I’m not aware of a public housing corporation that issues IDs for the people who live there, and public housing ID is one of the IDs on the list.”

Telling people they can vote using a form of ID that doesn’t exist smacks of a Marie Antoinette “Let them eat cake” level of classism and disregard.