home

Chairs and Forks to Be Missing At Many Convention Parties

For those of you thinking you will be awash in free and great food at parties and other events at the Democratic National Convention, think again. The New York Times reports that due to new ethics laws, most places will only be able to serve small plates of finger food -- as a result, many venues are removing the chairs and forks will not be provided.

[T]his year, members of Congress attending the Democratic convention in Denver next week and the Republican gathering in St. Paul in September are facing a more down-market prospect: bare-bones receptions where food eaten with forks has given way to finger food, where chairs have been removed and where meatballs may be served but not something heartier, like a hamburger.

The law is the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. It prevents lobbyists from providing meals, music and other gifts to Congressional members or their staff. [More...]

The law also outlaws parties financed by lobbyists to honor elected officials. In years past, these parties were a centerpiece of convention entertaining and were seen as a way for corporations to curry favor with lawmakers.

It's been a confusing time for party planners and many have just canceled events altogether:

[P]arty planners are trying to come up with innovative ways of providing protein to hungry conventioneers without crossing the line into an actual meal. Some lobbying groups have become so exasperated with the new rules that they have canceled events entirely.

Others are going the finger food/no chair route.

The new law is filled with loopholes and inconsistencies.

For instance, members of Congress cannot be singled out to be honored at events, but if they are members of a state delegation, the whole group can be honored. And the rules can vary for House and Senate members; senators can be “featured speakers” at events, while House members cannot. Meals, tickets to events and entertainment cannot be paid for by lobbyists, though those gifts can be accepted if provided by the Cities of St. Paul or Denver or if part of a fund-raising event is sponsored by the parties themselves.

.... People are trying to organize parties around conflicting and inscrutable rules,” said Jan Baran, a campaign finance expert at Wiley Rein, a Washington law firm. “It drives the lawyers crazy to give advice. We are having to decide if a group is a cover band, a string quartet or a name band.”

Tamayo on Larimer St, where 16 events are being held , serves great food. You probably won't know it from attending the parties.

At Tamayo, a Mexican restaurant in Denver that has been hired for 16 events, Amanda Burk, its head of private parties, said a simple formula was adopted: no forks and no chairs.

Most of the regular tables are being removed, to be replaced by tall cocktail tables. The convention menu will include finger food like mini empanadas, mini sopaipillas and sushi, something that Ms. Burk admits is “outside our normal menu” but fits within the rules. “We’re trying to comply with the law and still make sure that people get enough to eat,” she said.

Among the cancellations due to the new rules:

Peggy Beck, who runs the Denver catering firm Three Tomatoes, said she had two cancellations, including a major party from a lobbying firm that was to have featured Crosby, Stills and Nash.

Question: What are the rules on alcohol?

Bottom line: It sounds to me like if you are hungry, you should skip the parties by corporations and lobbyists and look for those sponsored by Denver or the Democratic Party.

< Innocence and DNA: Contrasting Cases | Obama Echoes Biden Echoing McCain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I do not (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by JThomas on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:19:21 PM EST
    mind that those poor underfed congresscritters will not be getting those 500 dollar dinners one bit.
    Average Joe isn't dining out near as much as reflected by the resturant revenues in this recession so why should their reps?

    If I were going, and (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:26:31 PM EST
    I'm not, I could be down with mini-empenadas, sushi and such.  If I needed a salad or such to balance the reception food that will be served, I'd take an hour and find a salad bar.

    Or bring my own fork.  (There's an idea - a market niche - for an enterprising candidate or organization:  get some heavy-duty plastic forks, have your name printed on them, and hand them out, outside the venues.  Ditto on paper cocktail napkins.  People will love you and might remember you for it.)

    These receptions are for networking, not getting hammered, so stick with the ginger ale....

    Who said this? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    I rise today in support of Senator Feingold's amendment to eliminate a loophole in this bill that would still allow members and staff to receive free meals from lobbyists up to $50 in value.

    Now, of all the ethics reforms we take up this week, this should be an easy one. Because I can't think of a single reason in the world why we shouldn't be paying for our own lunches in Washington.

    In cities and towns all across America, people pay for their own lunches and their own dinners. People who make far less than we do. People who can't afford their medical bills or their mortgages or their kids' tuition.

    You ask them if they think that the people they send to Congress should be able to rack up a $50 meal on a lobbyists' dime. You ask them if they think we should be able feast on free steak dinners at fancy restaurants while they're working two jobs just to put food on their table...

    So if you think these meal restrictions are the best thing to happen to ethics reform since the overdraft rules were revised at the House bank, here is who you can thank.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:38:58 PM EST
    I think only John Murtha Don Young, and Ted Stevens are the only people who still regularly vote against ethics packages.

    It's suicide for anyone who has higher aspirations.

    And being for this stuff is red meat for the idiot do-gooders.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#7)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:43:31 PM EST
    Yeah, I'm surprised that no one cited that in the above article. Afaik, that's the only real bill he managed to pass! I hope everyone at the convention is reminded of that kind of change in the way politics are conducted.

    Parent
    With all those loopholes (none / 0) (#9)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:55:18 PM EST
    I would not be touting his involvement in this legislation.

    Parent
    apparently no one thinks (none / 0) (#15)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:29:28 PM EST
    they can rack up $50 on "finger food".

    If Obama wanted to END free food, then why didn't he support ending it instead of supporting eating it standing up with no fork?

    Parent

    I wondered if someone was going to (none / 0) (#11)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    point this out!  I thought this was what he held up as an example of his great ability to reach across the aisle!  (And Biden snickered at him during the debates over this bill.)

    Too funny.  

    Parent

    My question is: (none / 0) (#14)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    Are they allowed to provide napkins?

    Parent
    Good intentions... (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:19:09 PM EST
    but lets face it...no law will keep lobbyists from providing cash, favors, and fine dining to our elected leaders.

    So instead filet mignon and some fine wine they get a chicken nugget and an envelope...same result, the best democracy money can buy.

    Jeralyn, o/t but VP may be Saturday (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:26:02 PM EST
    as I just saw a breaking news tip that Obama campaign has reserved the Illinois statehouse in Springfield -- where he started his campaign -- for Saturday.

    maybe (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    what they really fear is providing something sharp or throwable.

    Ethics reform and campaign finance reform (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:29:48 PM EST
    are such jokes.

    You dare mock H.L.O.G.A.??? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:40:39 PM EST
    A reform act so above-board they wouldn't even accept consulting serices under the table to come up with a fancy-schmancy pronounceable acronym???

    Parent
    wasn't this the new ethics reform (none / 0) (#12)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:25:13 PM EST
    bill that Obama touts as one of his finest accomplishments of bi-partisanship?

    MMMMM Tamayo sushi (none / 0) (#17)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:00:15 PM EST
    Made with masa or Mexican rice, with a center of shredded pork, wrapped in a corn tortilla.

    Well, they'll have to send some spies (none / 0) (#18)
    by joanneleon on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    to the Republican convention.  I'm sure they have figured out ways around these rules already.  They will probably have parties funded by think tanks and such, with forks... and chairs.

    Methinks there is going to be some very creative redefinition of the term "lobbyist" in the coming years.

    Personally, I never thought the meals and parties were that big of a problem.  A few exemptions for conventions held every four years wouldn't bother me either.  I wish they'd find ways to stop them from all the roundabout ways of getting large amounts of money into campaign coffers instead.  And maybe finding a way to stop big corporations and lobbies from writing legislation would be good too.  But as usual, they'll make a big deal out of the insignificant problems (and "fix" them) while leaving gaping holes that the biggest problems can still get through.  

    Anyway, let's hope napkins are still allowed with all that finger food.  And for all you convention goers, wear comfortable shoes.

    "Chairs and Forks to Be Missing... (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:24:24 PM EST
    ...At Many Convention Parties"

    Wow, and here I thought the Dems would be the last people I'd expect to steal silverware, but now we need to keep an eye on the furniture too?!

    I kid of course. The headline struck me as funny...

    lame (none / 0) (#20)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:35:39 PM EST
    Frankly the $50 limit made much more sense than this ridiculousness.  So a senator can go to an event and have pate and truffle appetizers with a caviar garnish but can't use a fork.  But the same senator couldn't go to something cateered by noodles and co or ihop.  stupid, arbitrary rule.

    The idiocicy of these "reforms" is only compounded by the fact that they were enacted in response to a problem that was well-handled under existing law.  Duke Cunningham and bob ney didn't "get away with it" - they were convicted.  for taking bribes which has been illegal for a pretty long time. the system worked.  no need for the war on forks.

    obama may take pride in this but it was a useless waste of time that's making a bunch of lawyers rich.

    Why would y'all want (none / 0) (#21)
    by Samky on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:11:59 PM EST
    lobbyists at either Convention?  don't we want to get rid of their influence on our elected officials?