IBJNews

Colts won't disclose which legislators got game tickets

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Colts officials don't think the team should have to make a public disclosure about which state legislators bought Super Bowl tickets, which the team made available to elected officials at face value.

Colts lobbyist Michael O'Connor, principal with Bose Public Affairs, said the team will not file a transaction report with the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission as it did in 2007.

"We looked very closely at the law this year and determined there is no gift," he said.

O'Connor said the team sold tickets to 26 state lawmakers, 27 members of the Indianapolis City-County Council, 10 members of Mayor Greg Ballard's office, six other state officials, and four members of Congress. Each of the officials paid $800 per ticket. 

Those are the same terms available to certain season ticket holders, who are chosen through a lottery. The tickets were readily available to the general public, however, and cost about $2,800 or more each on the secondary market.

When the team last went to the Super Bowl in 2007, the Colts filed a report on its transactions with state lawmakers at the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission. Sarah Nagy, general counsel at the ILRC, said she expected the Colts to file similar reports within seven days of the transactions this year.

It's true that the Super Bowl tickets aren't "gifts" under Indiana's lobby law, Nagy said via e-mail. She added, however, that the tickets are "purchases," which are still reportable under the law.

"The question is whether the Colts organization is making reserved tickets to the Super Bowl available to the entire general public, at cost, rather than at market value?" Nagy said. "The answer is 'no.'"

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT