![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Wow, that's pretty messed up.
I hope she wins.
Wow, that's pretty messed up.
I hope she wins.
Interesting...so, if the PIC has ceased to exist in essence, where did all the money go? Was it all spent on the Inauguration? Anybody know?
@toddy33: My friend works in the White House, and according to him the inauguration was paid for almost entirely with donations.
@toddy33: Indeed - the inauguration and associated events was paid for primarily by donations, somewhere around the $50mil mark. Or at least thats what I was told by a B.H.O. staffer. One who, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't cheated on his or her taxes.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-39759-100x100.png\")
@Drew5764: $50 million in donations doesn't even cover half of the inauguaration costs. Virginia, Maryland and DC together spent about $70 million, and our government spent about $45 million alone - more than the entire cost of Bush's inauguration, might I add.
This woman, while I feel sorry she did not get to witness this day in history, has little to no case IMHO. She *donated* money, she did not *purchase tickets*, and that's what it's going to come down to in the end, I think.
She doesn't understand donations well - she obviously deemed the PIC a worthy cause prior to the inauguration, and now she's changed her mind. Trying to get her money back after she donated it negates the entire reason for donating in the first place. At the risk of having everyone and their brother jump all over me, I'm going to go out on a limb and call Indian Giver on this entire debacle...
@toddy33: Donno. We're still trying to figure out where hundreds of billions of dollars from the bailout went, so I'm guessing this is a little low on the priority list.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-334332-100x100.png\")
@toddy33: Look around Washington for guys driving Bentleys waving fistfulls of hundreds.
In all seriousness, though, all that money went into some goddamn politician's goddamn pocket.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-851357-100x100.png\")
@toddy33: That is an outstanding question. Unfortunately, if you pry into that too deeply, somone is bound to call you a racist.
@HiPwr: Good heavens, I hope not! Hey, I voted for the guy. I was really interested, if only because I know so little of such things behind the scenes. Seeing that it's a going concern (thanks, skokieguy!) and still selling souvenirs, someone there is still handling money. Ostensibly, the purpose in the first place was to pay for the inauguration festivities themselves. Are they still paying for them? Or is someone actually making money on this proposition?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@Wilkin Wong: I fervently hope that some of that $10,000 goes to helping instill the correct usage of subject/verb agreement in Americans.
I'm amazed people are retarded enough to pay $10.000 in the first place to watch some idiot make a speech wasting your entire day.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159466-100x100.png\")
Nice, I don't think I've seen a comment with so many responses. Pure gold man, pure gold!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-75747-100x100.png\")
@Wilkin Wong: I'm with you, bro. If I had 10K, I could think of much better uses for it since I was happy to watch the historic event on TV.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-894757-100x100.png\")
@everyone: Don't feed the troll.
@Wilkin Wong: Wait, let me fix that for you:
I'm amazed that someone named \"Wang\" is retarded enough not to pay attention to being a dick the first place.
@Paladin: wait, I thought it was after Labor Day. Uh oh...
@Wilkin Wong: I agree. $10,000 for what? To watch something that you could have easily watched on TV or the Internet instead of standing in balls-cold weather from a distance cramped like sardines?
Sorry that I'm a bit of a misanthrope, and I wholeheartedly wish that this woman wins her chargeback. I love chargebacks.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-910740-100x100.png\")
@Wilkin Wong: Good thing we have you to set things straight. I mean, someone spending their money on something you don't approve of? The horror!
Wait, this isn't WhyCan'tPeopleBeLikeMe.com? Oh, sorry, sorry, my bad.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
I usually don't take troll bait, but I must say that I risked getting shitcanned to watch it online at work. I just yanked the earbud whenever the boss walked by.
(I think he knew what I was doing but he didn't say anything.)
If I wasn't saving up for a house, I would love to have seen history made. That and Pope John Paul II funeral are the two things I regret not having been able to witness.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-465667-100x100.png\")
@Wilkin Wong: Actually I am going to have to agree with you but in a much nicer way. I understand people wanting to be there to be a part of history. But I think I was just as much a part of history watching the whole thing on the TV not being surrounded by thousands of other people.
I guess if money is no object then paying the 10k wouldn't be a big deal she must have plenty laying around.
Of course I also get a bit claustrophobic in big groups.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
Now imagine if the people that saw MLK or other momentus occations felt the same way. Of course, those people probably didn't pay 10k.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-775624-100x100.png\")
@Saboth: well that is just it though. No one had to pay 10,000 to see MLK. They are selling history or at least marketing it. That is just wrong. Of course is bieng there really any different from watching it on tv now? does it matter if you were there? no you were still part of it and you lived through it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-355288-100x100.png\")
@Wilkin Wong: Giving Facebook a bad name.
You, sir, are an asshat. If I had $10,000, I'd gladly spend it to watch history being made.
You, sir, need to stay the fuck off the internet.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-54738-100x100.png\")
@ViperBorg - SpaceBat hates Facebook:
Yawn... someone from Facebook used the totally offensive word \"idiot\" and a superior Gawker media user responds with the child friendly \"fuck\".
OK.
Idiot is appropriate for both those with a (D) or a (R) in front of their name. There is no difference.
Oh but this is historic. A Democrat was voted in to office! How historic!
Must suck for you going through life as the tool that you are.
@ViperBorg - SpaceBat hates Facebook:
Just as a point, I watched \"history being made\" for free ON THE INTERNET so maybe you should relax a bit before telling people to get off the freegan lovefest that is Hulu
@ViperBorg - SpaceBat hates Facebook:
I wouldn't exactly consider your response to be \"elevated\" from the Facebook status you despise. In fact, you're exactly the type of person that needs to be banned from posting at all.
@Jonathan Marek Bailey: I earned the right to comment here. It wasn't just handed to me because I had a facebook account. Go earn it the right way, then MAYBE your opinion will matter.
@Todd Fernandez: Good for you. Not everyone made it out there. I just think if you put in the time and effort and go out of your way, you should be able to get into there and watch it in person.
@Trick: The history being made was because of his race, not his political affiliation. Please, think before you post.
@Drew5764: Perhaps. Fair trade, miss out on the Inauguration, stay a night in the White House. That's a nice deal.
@th1nwhiteduke: Oh, excellent comment, brought to us by the same idiot who posted \"@sos10: crawl out from under Obama's desk and wipe your mouth.\" [jalopnik.com]
You must be from one of those \"special\" classes. Why don't you and McCain go jump off a cliff.
Anyone else want to start a completely pointless fight on the internet? Or have we learned that the First Amendment applies to everyone? You want to state your side? Fine. You want to disagree with me? Fine. But don't try to start some childish fight on the internet because you don't agree with me. Learn to respect other people's posts. And yes, I'll always complain about Facebook. The rest of us had to actually try to get the right to comment, and it's an absolute slap on our faces that it just gets handed to you, so until you get off your high horse and get a real account on Gawker sites, your opinion doesn't mean dick to me, and I will continue to call you out on it. Show you can get past a moderator with a useful post, then talk. Otherwise, there's the door, don't let it hit you in your blue ass on the way out.
@ViperBorg - SpaceBat hates Facebook: It's no use trying to be logical and rising above the petty insults. But I like your response!!
@ViperBorg - SpaceBat hates Facebook: LOL. You would spend it to watch history being made? What does that even mean?
Watch it on tv and buy a car.
I am not sure how anyone can defend the absurdity of blowing 10 grand on nothing. Plus the tickets are FREE. Which is why she is screwed. She made a donation and got free gifts in return. Amex is not going to be able to reverse a donation. I highly doubt it said buy a ticket for 10 grand. It probably said donate 10 grand and receive blah blah blah as gifts.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-82917-100x100.png\")
@ViperBorg - SpaceBat hates Facebook: @I_am_Awesome:
That reminds me...I never got my free CD collection of Lake Wobegon when I donated to my local NPR affiliate. Good thing I paid with my AMEX. I guess I'll give them a call.
@SRSco: She made the 'donation' with the understanding that she would get the tickets.
Under those circumstances, you'd be entitled to raise hell with NPR too.
@noone1569: I don't understand your use of that question… what does not knowing about something have to do with paying a frakload of money to, as stated, watch some idiot give a speech and waste your entire day? Doesn't matter that it's Obama; could be the King of Siam. Same thing. Crowds, noise, hotels, just to watch some dude speak that will be on TV or YouTube anyway. No, you can't even say the same thing about cinema or theatre; you're actually close enough to see something. For $10,000, she might have gotten to a small, black dot out in the distance and heard an electronically-reproduced rendition of the speaker's voice. That's why it's not worth $10,000. Now go there free so that you have some bragging rights (for whatever reason your self-esteem requires), and it could be worth it.
Still, I hope she gets her money back. Good or bad purchasing choices aside, she got screwed over.
@balthisar: Perhaps you are missing the whole point of being at an event like this. Being part of a historical event. Actually being there!
Now the question \"do you live under a bridge\" was meant to infer that Wilkin Wong is a TROLL. Perhaps you missed that as well . . .
@noone1569: I did miss the troll reference. If you see where I wrote \"what does not knowing about something have to do with...\" you'll notice how I misunderstood. While trolls do live under bridges, asking someone if they live under a bridge (in common, North American English) isn't generally indicated for asking if one is a troll, but rather is an indication that someone doesn't know what's going on. For exmaple, \"What do you mean, you don't know who the President is? Have you been living under a bridge?\"
Lower Peninsula Michiganders are sometimes also called trolled by our Upper Peninsula brethren, because we live under the bridge (the Mackinac). However I stand by the generally-accepted usage of \"living under a bridge.\"
@nakedscience: of course the more importent moment in history is not the inauguration of the first african american president. The more important moment is going on now with the economy, the war in the middle east, and of course the revolution in technology we are going through.
@nakedscience: and what can you witness that you can witness from watching it on television or on the internet? You are just as much a part of it by watching it on tv then you are by being their.
@noone1569: If those knuckleheads in Washington have their way, pretty soon, we'll *all* be living under bridges.
This is really amazing.
Now we will get to see who has more power, the \"government\" or credit card companies.
@Blueskylaw: Admittedly, I'm no expert...but wasn't the PIC funded by \"donations\" such as this, rather than through tax dollars? Not sure it falls under the heading of \"government\" as such.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-188412-100x100.png\")
@toddy33: You are correct. It was all donations and not tax money. All of the inauguration was paid for by Obama's supporters.
@toddy33:
That is why I put government in parentheses.
Either way, it benefited the most \"powerful\" man in the world, and as such it has the essence of government attached to it.
@Blueskylaw: Oh, absolutely. :) Just wondering if he or anyone in the government would look upon this as anything more than a gnat problem. It would be truly interesting if EVERYONE who had donated via credit card and was denied entry would try this. Might get noticed faster!
Well, as I see it, if she wins, ALL Amex holders pay for her windfall. The PIC has colsed up shop, and presumably all the bank accounts. Amex can't go after the monies from them, so... then what? We pay?? I hope not.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-244548-100x100.png\")
@CityGuySailing: Actually you're wrong. If Amex gives her a credit, the amount is debited from merchant, in this case the PIC.
The PIC has not closed up shop. Perhaps you'd like to visit their website, and buy some collectibles, (and charge to your Amex, of course). Perhaps a commemorative item for Wilkin Wong to decorate his lovely abode, under a bridge.
@SkokieGuy: That's good then... Let them pay the 10k. I have no problem with that. The arguments from the PIC will be \"we don't control security\" and Ms. Blessman will then counter with \"You shouldn't have promised what you couldn't deliver.\" The only trick I can see to this is that the PIC did deliver her the tickets. She just couldn't get close enough to actually use them.
@CityGuySailing: A counter to that could be, again, that they shouldn't have promised what they couldn't deliver, and there's reason to believe that they 'oversold' (over-gave-away?) tickets, without properly informing ticket recipients that not all ticket holders would be able to fit. If they knowingly provided more tickets than there was space for, there's room for more discussion.
The thing that might cause her problems is that she did not buy two tickets to the inauguration for $10,000. She donated $10,000 to the PIC, and as a \"thank you\" she received a package of things that included tickets to the inauguration.
If you donated $200 to PBS and they gave you a free tote bag, would you say you bought the tote bag for $200? No, you'd say it was a gift that you received for donating money. The donation far outweighs the value of the gift, as is always the case when you receive a gift in exchange for donating to a non-profit. To expect her entire donation back because one part of the \"thank you\" didn't work out makes me thing she doesn't really understand donations.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-614388-100x100.png\")
@I_am_Awesome: Technically, those \"gifts\" have value - for tax purposes at least. I know when I donated money last year the letter I got said I could only claim $xx of it as a charitable donation, since I got concert tickets out of the deal.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350236-100x100.png\")
@TheWillow: The fine print should have detailed exactly what the stated value of the tickets were for precisely this reason.
@Lippmann: I believe my ticket had a clause on it somewhere that the actual value of each ticket was .001 cents. (Similar to a coupon in a store).
@TheWillow:
You know, I was going to mention that, but I'm not sure this donation would have been tax deductible at all.
If it was tax deductible, then it's very easy to figure out how much she should be entitled to get back, if anything. Just take the amount she wrote off on her taxes (or intended to write off) and subtract it from $10,000. That is the value (to her) of the free gifts. If she wrote off $9500, she valued the gifts at $500, and I think it'd be fine for her to get a refund of $500 (though I do think she still needs to learn a thing or two about donations). If she wrote off $10k, then she valued the free gifts at $0 and she should get nothing back. :) No amended returns, please. ;)
She can't tell American Express she paid $10,000 for inauguration tickets, then tell the IRS she donated $10,000 to the inauguration.
Of course that all assumes the donation was deductible, and it really only works if she made the donation last year.
@I_am_Awesome: It depends on whether or not the tickets were offered as a reward for the donation. If they were. Then this is a valid claim.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-453211-100x100.png\")
@Randy Treibel: Sure, but since she donated instead of actually buying something, they also have the right, as all of these organizations claim, to \"substitute the gift for something of equal or greater value.\" The monetary value of the tickets was $0. How does she at all have a claim?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-545915-100x100.png\")
@I_am_Awesome: Awesome point, I think you just decided how this is going to turn out. I didnt know this was the case, so thank you for clearing it up.
@I_am_Awesome: Yeah, this is odd. I don't think purple tickets were sold. They were free, weren't they? She made a donation to a non-profit and got a few perks, but it wasn't a quid-pro-quo. Lots of purple ticket holders paid no money. I think in the end she's going to be disappointed.
And while I am sympathetic to the ticket holders who didn't get to see the ceremony (it was a crazy, chaotic day that definitely could have been better planned), the PIC and Obama don't really *owe* them anything, as far as I can tell. Getting tickets in any section and even being able to get to the Mall in time to see the ceremony were always the luck of the draw. Better planning usually led to a better experience, but there was no guarantee that any of us would be able to see anything. People who donated weren't guaranteed a ticket, either. If they knew the right person or their request arrived ahead of someone else's then they'd have a *better* chance, but still only a chance.
@I_am_Awesome: Exactly. I've read through the fine print on the \"Ticket Protection Plan\" and that's probably going to be American Express's answer. It's shitty for her, but honestly I don't see how she couldn't have seen the madness coming. I had friends who arrived at DC at 2AM the day of and still couldn't get to their area until halfway through the ceremony because of the security and mobs. I would've loved to see all the events and the inauguration proper, but, for my time and tolerance for crowds like that, I'm glad I have cable television instead.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-390449-100x100.png\")
@hellinmyeyes: would've loved to see all the events and the inauguration proper, but, for my time and tolerance for crowds like that, I'm glad I have cable television instead.
You probably enjoyed it just as much or more. Everyone on the mall was freezing to death.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4587-100x100.png\")
@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: In my opinion, if the value of the \"gift\" given in exchange for a \"donation\" equals or exceeds the amount of the \"donation\", the \"donation\" is actually a purchase. That ticket could be resold for more than $10,000 so I say it's a purchase, regardless of what type of facade it was wrapped in.
@Greg []: No it cannot. The tickets are free. They have no value. An unofficial resale value does not change the face value of the ticket. In the end she donated and got a gift that was FREE.
And a gift given in exchange for a donation that is worth more than the donation is not a purchase. Usually when that occurs it means the owner of the merchandise donated them for free to the cause. Who then turns around and gives them as gifts in exchange for cash donations.
But again, free tickets have no value.
@Corporate_guy: Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them, regardless of the supposed face-value.
Obama: Chargebacks you can believe in.
I tried to feel bad for her, but couldn't summon the energy. I have a problem with money getting you vaulted to the front of the ticket line for an event that is supposed to be free. We don't like it when ticketmaster does it, why should we like it when some entitled shrink in Chicago pulls it off?
I hope she loses the refund too- she made a donation, not a purchase. Hopefully the PIC has it in writing that the donation is no-strings and made no promises about the tickets.
How dare the government charge us to see it in action. The whole damned thing was paid for by US!
@HiPwr: I can't tell if this is sarcasm. Perhaps I need my morning cup of coffee. Assuming your serious...
Yes a lot of it is paid for by tax dollars, but a lot is paid for by private donors as well, including this lady who paid $10,000 toward the cost of the event. Far more than the 25 cents (just guestimating) or so each American paid thru their taxes. I think then she deserves a little special attention like a better guaranteed spot for that amount of money.
Also it was free for everyone to come down and watch. Only the reserved areas were off limits and most of those open to the public were filled with people who got their tickets free from their senators or congressman.
@Tmoney02: Another point - She deserves perks because she is rich and can afford to give away $10k? Doesn't that fly in the face of the rhetoric Obama has been spewing for the last two years?
@Tmoney02: I'm guessing, but I strongly suspect that the majority of this event was paid for by you and me. Do you disagree? I also wonder if her $10,000 was a tax-deductable contribution.
@HiPwr: It's not tax deductible. Instead of wondering out loud and guessing wrongly, try doing a bit of research. Otherwise you are in danger of making yourself look like an idiot.
If the PIC is found at fault and does not have sufficient funds it ends up being the windfall of the credit card processing company.
However, if the money is considered a donation it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the PIC - or the processing company - will have to fork anything over.
It sounds like the money is considered a donation so I wish the Chicagoan the best of luck.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-95807-100x100.png\")
Oh *surely* there was some fine print saying \"we're not responsible for pretty much anything\" (esp. crap outside our control).
I would suspect that as she was turned away not due to the ticket being invalid, but due to crowd control and security issues, her argument for the chargeback is weaker. I didn't donate $10,000 myself, so I have no idea what the wording was, but I would suspect there was some sort of warning like \"All ticketholders are subject to a security screening. As large crowds are expected, please arrive early to allow for this process.\"
@DaWezl: No it probably went more like this, \"Donate 10k and get a basket of free gifts. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and two obama tickets are included in the free gift basket.\"
No specific details about any gift would have been given.
@Corporate_guy: Which begs the question, did she get what she paid for? If the verbiage was \"two tickets,\" then, yes, she did. PIC is free and clear. That she couldn't make it through security is really her own problem for not showing up earlier.
Of course, I also agree with all the \"donation\" comments.
@Liam Kinkaid:
I'm sorry that you're uncultured, but in many other parts of the world the decimal point is used as the digit grouping operator and the comma as the decimal separator.
@tvh2k: Are you actually sorry I'm uncultured, or did your sarcasm slip by me, too? Or maybe it was my sarcasm that slipped by you?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-871030-100x100.png\")
It's a gift, a donation, so honestly she's likely SOL.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-125641-100x100.png\")
Good for her. Sounds like chargeback is the right thing to do here.
@vladthepaler: She didn't buy anything, she donated the money. Chargebacks are only for purchases you make that don't meet the expectations of the sale.
@supercereal: Amex offers a bit more in that department, including extended warranties and damage protection. For tax purposes (although taxes aren't relevant here since donations to PIC aren't deductible), usually a total donation is equal to the sum given minus the \"free gifts\" received in return.
So maybe this particular issue is not that black-and-white.
I bet this woman is one of those evil rich people making more than $250k/year, so she isn't going to be able to hang on to that $10k either way.
I too was a purple ticket holder and did not get past security. People need to understand, first off, that the crowds that day were just wonderful - everyone was very happy and agreeable. I don't see how anyone could possibly blame Obama in any way for this. I had personally paid over $600 for the day after adding up hotel, gas, etc., which was far less than most of the people in the crowd who had flown in from across the country for this historic event. I strongly believe the blame for the folks not getting into the inauguration lies squarely on the folks managing security, which was primarily the Transportation Security Administration , or TSA. They had a marshalling area in front of the 20-plus metal detectors which was large and fenced in where people would be allowed into after presenting their ticket at a checkpoint. This area was largely empty and TSA would regularly stop screening people for extended periods (5 minutes at a time) doing nothing. What was most insulting was when a man with a jacket with \"TSA Public Affairs\" emblazoned on the back would come up to the TSA screeners with a video camera and interview them about their work. I'd like for a congressman to ask to see that video from TSA and ask how they were able to obtain this footage of their screeners at 10:30-11:00 a.m. Blame also must be placed on the security planning by the Secret Service and FBI as their personnel were right in the middle of the crowds without any means to communicate with the crowd; no bullhorns and no radios to even talk to each other. This just looked like total buffoonery in the moment. This of course was not the doing of the individuals doing their jobs, but the person in charge of the overall security planning. I felt, as a US Marine who is somewhat familiar with security operations and force protection concerns, that those were the main reasons for the failed execution of this event. Instead of moving people through security quickly as you would do for a professional sporting event, the planners were certainly in \"warrior\" mode, thinking of how they could limit the flow of people into the event as the solution to both protect their own personnel as well as ensure the security of the President. Sounds great, can't argue with that, right? While it may have briefed well in the hundreds of PowerPoint slides I'm sure they prepared during the planning phase, I can't disagree more strongly with their execution of the security that day and believe that their force protection concerns were overly timid. Remember, the folks with purple tickets were all known by name and had been presented these tickets by their Congressman or Senator. Most had made a significant investment of both time and money to be there. This was not any random riff-raff who just showed up. In other words, the crowd who could even get near the metal detectors was a force protection dream come true. I'd encourage people to focus their disgust on the people responsible for security that day; ask Senator Feinstein, the chairperson for the planning, if she had seen the TSA PAO video, if she had seen the emptiness in the security area while tens of thousands stood quietly and calmly in the background behind a security fence to get in. I am angry as well, but we need to put the security planners for this event in the hot seat for this one, not the President, as I'm sure without any reservation he would have wanted every American who traveled to DC that day to have been on the Mall to witness the inauguration.
Wow, talk about one heck of an 'up yours' to the PIC. I haven't decided if she's in the right or not to do this, but I appreciate such a gutsy decision.
\"Unfortunately, the PIC has ceased to exist, and has basically taken a 'sorry about that, but thanks for your money' attitude\"
Are we SURE this isn't an official government agency? ;)
Oh boy, I'm wincing in anticipation of all the pointless, irrelevant political flaming this post is going to incite. But bottom line, she paid for something, didn't get it, and now wants her money back.
@tc4b: She donated money, the act of donating getting what you pay for. This is a freakin joke, and amex customers are going to have to eat her 10k donation. Yeah, change I believe in.
@tc4b:
I think she got what she paid for. If it was a donation then she paid for the donation and could claim it on her taxes. She was not denied entry because of the tickets but she did not arrive days in advance like the experts were saying. My money says that she most likely filed her taxes and it would be interesting if she claimed it as a donation. I live 95 miles away from DC and we heard nothing but avoid 95 because of the delays from the event.
@TEW: I hear you, and technically it makes sense, but I don't think she would've made the donation if the admission wasn't included. After rereading the article, I guess the real question is who, if ANYBODY, can really be held accountable for her not being there. If the group she donated to is in ANY way connected with the democratic party, they could do a lot worse than sending her an apology and, I don't know, like a brick from the sidewalk Obama walked on or something. Good PR, that's all.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-373342-100x100.png\")
I'd like to chargeback the $36,000 in debt this administration is saddling me with for programs I don't want.
@bilups: Ditto my wanting back my share of the $3,000,000,000 squandered in Iraq. I'd ask for the return of the blood of 4,500+ US servicemen's lives lost, but I'm pretty sure that it'd make a mess of my wallet.
And, I'm wearing white pants (wince).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-351903-100x100.png\")
She didn't miss much.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-306389-100x100.png\")
Just to throw a little research on the fire here...
WARNING: Both of these are Adobe PDFs!
Check out the law firm of Covington & Burlap's PIC Contribution Alert, and a summary of AMEX's Chargeback Policy Guide for Merchants.
Just sayin'...
@Lincolnsbeard33: Having fought that war in the Mid-East for two years personally, I consider the inauguration a more historic point. . . .
If I buy a ticket to a movie via Fandango, and I get stuck in traffic and miss it, do I get a refund? Nope.
While it certainly sucks, going from Chicago to DC certainly involves planning. Did she think she was the only person showing up? When I go somewhere expecting a crowd, I get there early. I can understand not expecting the crowd to be quite so unruly, but thousands of people were able to get in there just fine. It's not like her name was on a terrorist list and they denied her access.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-436924-100x100.png\")
@superberg:
If you buy a ticket to a movie via Fandango, and the theater's security procedures force you to miss the movie, do you get a refund?
@RayDelMundo: You got the ticket, which is what you paid for. Fandango is faultless in that scenario, so take it up with the theater if they won't let you in.
Obama is an empty suit. Paying $10,000 to hear him speak proves P.T. Barnum's old adage.
It is really unfortunate that PIC is only responsible for the Inaugural Balls, not the actual Inauguration. That was handled by the Join Congressional Committee on Inaugural Activities, this time headed by the U. S. Senate. PIC is allotted tickets to the inauguration, but they are not responsible for the security or crowd control at the event.
IMHO the chargeback should be denied based on the fact that PIC is a non-profit organization that exists solely to organize the inaugural activities that Congress does not organize (ie. Inaugural Balls and Parade). For more information go to inaugural.senate.gov
A black lady voting for Obama? No way...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-66223-100x100.png\")
@jake7294: (presumably) white anti-Obama guy (Republican?) commenting on black woman voting for (half) black Democrat president? No way...
Okay, I'm making assumptions. But I'm adding as little to this conversation as you did, minus calling you on your sad cynicism.
@Lincolnsbeard33: Fair enough. I also am very active with IVAW . . so we probably differ there as well ;)
@noone1569: I am against it too but that doesn't mean it is not a much more historically significant event.
Look at it this way which was more important the night when Obama was declared the winner or his inauguration?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-932865-100x100.png\")
Were there any caveats about the payment, such as warning that due to security concerns they might not be seated and no refunds? There is always small print to cover their asses when politicians and lawyers are involved.
There's actually legal precedent for this kind of claim. [en.wikipedia.org] Obviously that has nothing to do with the chargeback procedures, but the idea has been around for a while. Krell v. Henry is almost on point! IANAL.
While I agree she should have been able to see the event as promised, it sounds like her heart wasn't in the right place if she was only donating the money in order to go to the event.
Wasn't the point of donating the money to give to a worthy cause and help the inauguration?
I'm sure there's a better solution to this than what she's doing.
She will eventually lose. AmEx probably gave her the conditional credit because no one at PIC responded like they are supposed to because they don't exist.
One response from PIC - that the money was a donation - and the AmEx people will reverse the conditional credit.
I find the exact bill number, but a congresswomen from california introduced a bill in november to ban the sale of inauguration tickets. so i think this women is out of luck. the tickets were free is there is a law that bans the sale of them.
Say I created an organization to help poor people, and for a $500,000 donation you get a \"free\" human kidney as a thank you gift. Selling organs is illegal, and I doubt this dodge would work: I'd end up in prison. The ticket situation seems similar.
Quoth the story: \"Furthermore, the PIC had no responsibility or authority for planning and security matters at the inaugural swearing-in ceremony at the Capitol.\"
This is like suing the plumber because the electrician burned your house down. PIC had nothing to do with why she had a bad experience.
@Wilkin Wong: The 10k was a donation she made to the Presidential Inauguration Committee i.e. charitable tax write off. She be getting the money back when she did her taxes for 2009. She's obviously p.o'd at the PIC and wants to make them $10,000 less rich.
@pepelicious: No, political donations are not charitable tax write-offs, or any sort of write-off for that matter.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-621269-100x100.png\")
What's the saying?
Oh yeah... \"A fool and her money are soon parted.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-196743-100x100.png\")
Prediction: The woman and her family will get invited to the White House to spend some personal quality time with the Obama family. Case closed, chargeback withdrawn.
Maybe they might get some bowling in while they're there...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-546560-100x100.png\")
She got what she paid for, no?
Regardless of what she deserves to get back (nothing, IMO) I'm sure she'll get her $10K back simply due to the publicity. I just hope I don't end up indirectly paying for it as an AMEX cardmember.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16075-100x100.png\")
A colossal waste of money.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-236523-100x100.png\")
If she wins this chargeback, this will confirm my belief that AMEX is an awesome company.
Not sure how bright this woman is - she thought the PIC refunded her the $10k, but they clearly had nothing to do with it and didn't even offer a refund in their official response statement.
I'm sorry, but ... if I was going to a concert and spent $50 on a ticket ... and the city's security was tight due to the concert, and I couldn't park nearby or get to it because of the city ... I would not expect a refund from the concert organization. Maybe the city, but not the concert organization. My own damned fault for not leaving early enough to get through what would be guaranteed to be a clusterfuck if extremely popular.
@maztec: Ticketholders who got into downtown at 4 am didn't get in. It had very little to do with how early you got in, and more with what gate you went to. People were directed to gates and waited for hours, and the gates were never opened though they were supposed to have been. By then everyone was so hemmed by the crowd/line that had formed behind them, they couldn't even get out to try and go to another gate.
I live in DC and know at least 20 purple ticketholders who didn't get in that day, and it had nothing to do with lateness or personal responsibility for a single one of them. It was a giant clusterf- that day, and the Secret Service, Metro police, and event organizers never actually communicated.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116599-100x100.png\")
You wanted change and you got it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-541243-100x100.png\")
@Trick:
yeh, how historic is that. it's just the first black president. whats the big deal
/ end sarcasm
I know everyone here hates them but I love Amex for this type of stuff. We had a 880 dollar stupid rooming problem when we went to Jamaica on vacation (long story, I think I've posted it before.)
Anyway, we complained to Amex, they issued a temporary refund and fought with the hotel company on our behalf. It took a little back and forth but we were refunded half the money we were out from the hotel and Amex gave us the other half as credit on the card! It doesn't get better than that.
My guess is that this twit showed up late like so many people and expected that nobody would be inconvenienced by her inconsiderate behavior. IMHO, if you didn't show up way early for an event that you knew was going to be a mob scene, too effing bad.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-474558-100x100.png\")
What was the $10,000 for, anyway? Just a \"chance\" at getting a view or a seat? Or was there some actual offer involved? Any disclaimers in the agreement? (Read your cruise ship packet sometime: no guarantees on anything, which are expressly spelled out).
I feel like there's a good number of details missing here.
What if your taxi blew a tire on the way? Is that PIC's problem?
I don't see this working out well for her.
If I buy a theater ticket with my American Express card and I get stuck in traffic I can't blame the theater, or Amex.
but a movie ticket is what..10 bucks. This dope \"donated\" 10g's to secure a seat. Is it her fault that they were all disorganized? By accepting her payment they should of made sure the people that had a secure seat were able to make it there.
The reason charities and nonprofits exchange a gift for your kind donation is to make it a legally binding contract. Try pledging $100 month to your local public television station, and then don't honor your commitment. You will soon find your self being hounded by a collection agency, but at least you will know the value of that great tote;)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-44395-100x100.png\")
I'm guessing the PIC is going to claim force majeure on this. It was not their fault that Federally-mandated security procedures, and the incompetence of the Federal authorities at the site (I was there, it was a clusterfuck of epic proportions) caused this women to not be able to see the President speak.
Talk about an idiot tax. She could just consider this a down payment on the \"rich tax\". Anyone who has an extra 10 grand to throw out like this must be an evil rich person.
This is great, hope she gets it all back and keeps it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-212073-100x100.png\")
Of course we'll never get an update like some other stories on consumerist. too bad. I'm still waiting to see if that elderly woman ever got her CD cashed by the bank that changed names and claimed to have no record of her CD or the guy & his son who recorded all the exchanges between them and NBCtv's customer service creeps who kept yelling at both him and his son and calling them a couple of con artists. Dammit, consumerist, why do you do this to me???
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-706751-100x100.png\")
First off, NO PRESIDENT is important enough to pay that much money to see get inaugurated. Secondly, if there was no guarantee that she would see him, well tough tittie.
NOBAMA! Keep the change.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-410697-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-562864-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-52435-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-172388-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-469220-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-417012-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-191367-100x100.png\")
Awesome. I like this a lot.
@Yankees368: Yes, I too enjoyed reading that. I hope she gets her money back IN FULL. How outrageous for them to even keep that money?
@Yankees368: Yeah, I think it is awesome too. I wonder if I can pay my FEDERAL INCOME TAXES with a credit card and then get a charge-back when congress does more idiotic things to me as a taxpayer. NOW, THAT WOULD BE A STIMULUS PACKAGE.
@Yankees368:
I have my doubt that the refund will stay. Unless the PIC was responsible for security at the site. they should not be held responsible for the person missing the event.
So unless Amex wants to be the nice guy and give 10k from it's own pocket I think the person is out of luck