Political Perks Examining Senator Gifts And Freebies Across State Legislatures

Dec. 3, 2025, 7:06 a.m.

Tags: senate

The practice of accepting gifts and freebies by state senators has emerged as a significant ethical concern across various U.S. state legislatures. While these political figures are entrusted with representing constituents' interests, the acceptance of complimentary items ranging from meals to tickets raises questions about potential influence and conflicts of interest. This article examines the landscape of senatorial freebies, including legislative attempts to regulate such perks and instances where lawmakers have continued accepting gifts despite voting restrictions.

State-Level Restrictions on Senator Gifts

Several states have proposed or implemented measures to limit the types of gifts senators and their staff can accept. In Missouri, a legislative proposal aimed to require special permission before lawmakers could accept free lodging, travel, or tickets. The measure, which would apply to members of both the House and Senate as well as their families and staff, would prohibit accepting freebies without prior approval from the House or Senate administration committee.

State Senator Charlie Shields, the bill's sponsor, acknowledged that business can be conducted over meals but questioned whether work genuinely occurs during games or concerts. The legislation, which was in the full Senate at the time of reporting, anticipated opposition particularly focused on the restrictions related to free travel, hotels, and tickets to shows and sporting events.

In California, state senators voted nearly unanimously to prevent themselves from receiving free concert, sports, and theme park tickets from businesses that lobby the state. However, despite supporting this ban, some senators continued to accept such gifts. For instance, Senator Anthony Cannella received tickets to the U.S. Open golf championship from AT&T worth $420 shortly after voting for the prohibition. Similarly, Senator Alex Padilla accepted $340 in Walt Disney World tickets, and Senator Curren Price picked up $168 worth of Disneyland tickets from The Walt Disney Company.

Cannella defended his position, stating that while he supported the bill because "there is merit to restricting the types of gifts that can be given to the legislature," he believed accepting sporting event tickets didn't influence his decision-making. "I make decisions based upon what is in the best interest of my constituents and the people of California," he claimed.

The "Infrequent" Meals Loophole

Washington state presents a particularly complex case regarding senator gifts. After a recent legislative session, Washington State legislators increased their per diem by 33%, providing each member approximately $120 daily for food, travel, and housing expenses. On top of this, lawmakers can accept free meals from lobbyists under the condition that they are "infrequent."

The ambiguity surrounding what constitutes "infrequent" has created significant debate. According to reports, one Washington senator accepted free meals on 62 occasions during the 2013 legislative session, totaling $2,000. Senator Jamie Pederson, who sits on the Ethics Committee, commented on the situation, stating, "Doesn't, in my view, mean 62 times in four months, but also plainly doesn't mean never-ever."

The Washington State Ethics Committee has been attempting to define the term "infrequent," holding public hearings to gather input. During these hearings, some citizens expressed strong opposition to lawmakers accepting free meals from lobbyists. Robert Cavenaugh argued that legislators should simply say no to such offerings, stating, "If I come in to a legislator and buy him meals and pay for his lodging, that means I expect him to do something." Cavenaugh also highlighted his frustration with how special interest groups appear to have easier access to lawmakers than ordinary citizens.

Previous attempts to limit free meals in the 2014 legislative session included a House measure that would have increased transparency by making it easier for the public to identify which special interest groups were paying for lawmakers' meals. However, this bill failed to pass in the Senate. Currently, lobbyists are only required to report free meals exceeding $25.

Senate Customs and Unique Perks

Beyond gifts from external entities, senators also have access to certain unique perks through Senate traditions. During high-profile events like impeachment trials, senators have been observed enjoying items like milk and candy. During the recent presidential impeachment trial, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas was seen drinking multiple glasses of milk, which he confirmed on Twitter while making a political jab at lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff.

Notably, senatorial milk is not considered a freebie in the traditional sense—senators must provide it themselves. According to Senate Assistant Historian Daniel Holt, the Senate cloakroom provides only one beverage allowed on the Senate floor: water. "In today's Senate, the Democratic and Republican cloakrooms provide water to senators when requested, and senators can choose between still or sparkling water," Holt explained.

Another Senate tradition highlighted during the impeachment trial is the designated candy drawer. Former Senator Rick Santorum shared his preference, stating, "I'm York Peppermint Patty guy. That's always been my favorite."

The Case of Harry Reid's Boxing Tickets

Senator Harry M. Reid, D-Nev., faced criticism for accepting free ringside tickets to Las Vegas boxing matches while simultaneously pushing federal legislation to oversee the boxing industry. When pressed about the situation, Reid didn't see anything wrong with accepting the freebies, stating, "I would be criticized if I didn't go. It's just like going to an Ohio State football game, an Arizona State football game..."

The tickets, worth hundreds of dollars, came from the Nevada Athletic Commission, a state agency. Notably, Senate rules that normally limit gifts to $50 don't apply to more valuable presents from state and local governments, and such gifts don't even need to be disclosed. This loophole in the rules reflects a broader problem with gift regulations.

While Reid maintained that he wasn't doing the athletic commission's bidding—indeed, he was pushing legislation it opposed—commission officials were still eager for an opportunity to lobby the senator, with ringside seats providing an ideal setting. The fundamental purpose of gift rules is to prevent lawmakers from accepting benefits from those attempting to influence their legislative decisions, making such situations appear unseemly even without evidence of actual corruption.

Consumer Promotions: The Ottawa Senators Model

While most sources focus on political freebies, one example from the sports world offers a different perspective on promotional offers. The Ottawa Senators hockey team has implemented a successful "Buy One, Get One" (BOGO) promotional campaign using automated technology. According to Pam David, Ticket Operations Manager for the team, this approach has streamlined their Black Friday promotions.

"This new feature eliminates manual work and creates a streamlined, automated experience for our Black Friday BOGO campaigns," David explained. The team strategically selects games for the paid tickets, choosing matchups with strong demand while using the free ticket option to help move inventory for less popular games. This approach benefits fans by getting them in seats while also helping the team manage inventory more efficiently.

The Ottawa Senators' strategy demonstrates how promotional offers can be structured to benefit both consumers and businesses. By pairing high-demand games with less popular ones, the team creates value for fans while maximizing revenue potential across their entire schedule.

Attempts at Reform

Across various states, there have been ongoing efforts to address the issue of senatorial gifts and freebies. These attempts range from outright bans on certain types of gifts to increased transparency requirements and the establishment of clearer definitions for terms like "infrequent."

In Washington, the Ethics Committee agreed to hold additional public hearings and develop proposals to define "infrequent meals" by June. Meanwhile, in California, despite the nearly unanimous vote to restrict certain gifts, questions remained about enforcement and compliance after several senators continued to accept the prohibited items.

The Missouri proposal requiring special permission for accepting free lodging, travel, or tickets represents another approach to regulating senatorial perks. By requiring administrative approval, such measures aim to create additional oversight and discourage potentially problematic gift acceptance.

Conclusion

The landscape of senatorial gifts and freebies reveals significant variation across states, with different approaches to regulation, enforcement, and transparency. While some states have implemented outright bans on certain types of gifts, others rely on ambiguous terms like "infrequent" to create guidelines without clear boundaries. Despite legislative efforts to curb problematic gift acceptance, instances of lawmakers continuing to accept prohibited items highlight the challenges of effective regulation.

The case of the Ottawa Senators demonstrates how promotional offers can be structured effectively to benefit consumers while serving business interests, offering a contrast to the ethical concerns surrounding political gifts. As states continue to grapple with these issues, the tension between access to lawmakers and the appearance of improper influence remains a central challenge in crafting appropriate regulations.