* Good work Sun-Times. Now, more like this, please…
Barack Obama needs to phone home. Illinois voters could use Obama’s considerable influence in swaying his so-called political godfather, Senate President Emil Jones, to call a vote on a sorely needed state political ethics bill.
The Democratic presidential nominee is no casual observer. As state Sen. Kirk Dillard (R-24th) reminds us, Obama has his fingerprints all over ethics reform in Illinois, having been a leader in pushing for reform when he was a state senator.
Frankly, we can’t see a downside for Obama here. With one phone call — “Hey, Emil, let’s talk . . .” — he would remind voters nationwide of his reform credentials, and that call just might help — Jones might get off the dime. […]
Call home, Senator. You’ve got Jones’ number.
* Meanwhile, Phil Kadner takes a somewhat contrarian viewpoint in a column entitled “Stop me before I take another bribe”…
I’m not a believer in ethics legislation. No matter how many laws you pass, crooks are always going to be crooks.
An honest person doesn’t need to look at a law to do the right thing.
So I’ve found it difficult to work up much enthusiasm for a proposed state law that would prohibit companies that do at least $50,000 in business with the state from making campaign contributions to elected officials. ]…]
You can’t make [Senate President Emil Jones] do the right thing by saying it’s wrong for politicians to take money from contractors doing business with the state.
That’s why Jones was elected Senate president by his fellow Democrats.
They knew what he stood for when they made him their leader.
Maybe they should think hard on that when picking his replacement.
You can’t make people act ethically by passing a law.
But you can try to elect people who are ethical.
Thoughts?
* Related…
* Marin: Is dysfunctional Springfield a cuckoo clique?
LIVE session coverage...
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 10:02 am:
==Obama has his fingerprints all over ethics reform in Illinois, having been a leader in pushing for reform when he was a state senator.==
So there! We’re reformed! Why do we need this legislation then if Obama has already lead the way?
His fingerprints will not be on that phone either.
- red dog - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 10:03 am:
Seems like many are pleading for Obama influence to no avail-For a man who crys CHANGE as a primary issue,this ,at least, appears to be a demonstration of his future action-he is a result of Cook Co politics,and it shows
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 10:15 am:
I think Kadner’s more right than wrong. Money is the mother’s milk of politics.
- Just Because - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 10:42 am:
Even though I have a problem with some of the ethics bill details, I agree Obama should show us what he is made of and help Illinois get back on track. It would show AMERICA truly who he is and what he stands for, but then again here in Illinois we all know about his friend and neighbor tony. I also agree the Senate should really think about who they want as their next president. Some of these issues we talk and joke about need to stop. I love the cuckoo article.
- bored now - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 10:42 am:
yes, yes. we all know that nothing else is important but illinois. even after barack has been president and he sets up his presidential library in the state, pols here will still believe that nothing else matters but illinois.
the only reason that barack has been able to run for national office is because he has (thankfully) transcended that parochial attitude that dominates illinois politics. running for president isn’t easy and there is no earthly reason for barack to get involved in another food fight between the speaker and the governor. no matter what happens to this bill, it is likely to change little as either the governor’s people or the speaker’s people will figure out a way around it.
let barack be barack. run, baby, run! springfield will still be screwed up after november…
- Jim Rockford - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 10:54 am:
Me-ee aa-annnd Mister, Mister Jones
Mister Jones
Mister Jones
Mister Jones,
We got a thing
Goin’ on . . .
- Captain Flume - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 10:57 am:
From what I understand about the history of the parties involved, and manner in which they like(d) to conduct business, Phil Kadner’s assessment is correct. His critique says softly what many insiders seem to know from experience about Emporer Jones.
- Ted - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 11:23 am:
Why do newspapers have to editorialize about this? Is our Senator so indifferent to the State he presently represents that he does’nt know what is going on? I am troubled that it has got to this point. Even if all the pleading from newspapers that lavishly endorse him and give him such favorable coverage eventually leads to Obama making a phone call, the fact that he has yet to act is a telling indictment. Maybe it was correct to say that some people talk about change to advance their careers and others spend their careers trying to bring about change and reform.
- Captain America - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 11:25 am:
Excepting the Alpha male (Public offical A), I like and respect the Constitutional Officers and a number of legislators. However, as far as I am concerned, Illinois government has become s veritable “cuckoo’s nest” under the dysfunctional leadership of Governor Pinocchio,Godfather Jones, and Speaker Machiavelli.
The Democratic caucus is “cuckoo” for letting Madigan and Jones dominate them so utterly and completely. Legislative rules need to be changed so that this dicatorship of the Democratic triumvirate ceases. Strong leadership and party discipline are fine, but dictatorship is not.
- The Doc - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 11:28 am:
This would be the sort of symbolic gesture that could get Obama back on track. The campaign is losing ground to the GOP ticket. The appearance that he’s a reformer is of importance, and that begins at home. This is an opportunity he shouldn’t dismiss.
- BandCamp - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 11:46 am:
===Maybe it was correct to say that some people talk about change to advance their careers and others spend their careers trying to bring about change and reform.===
I was on the other side of this debate a couple days and I’ve come around. This above statement is why.
What a lot of people want to see is someone who actually step up and swing the stick they carrying around threatening to use so often.
I’d be quite impressed is BO did act on this in some way, if only a phone call, as the Sun-Times, Rich, and 90 percent of the Illinois publishing community suggests.
- Snidely Whiplash - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:01 pm:
Please, remind US of Obama’s “reform credentials.” He was mentored and built-up by Emil Jones the whole way, and boy, did he ever “reform” Emil.
Obama sold out his so-called “reform ideals” by refusing to endorse Forrest Claypool in the Democratic CCBC primary over Stroger, then actually endorsed Stroger over Peraica (so much for his “bipartisanship”, too) because he needed the Machine’s backing.
Like everything else about Obama, his “reform credentials” are nothing but words that come out of his mouth.
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:29 pm:
No downside for Obama here? You’ve got to be kidding me. What if Barack calls Emil and Emil says no? If Candidate Obama can’t even convince his own godfather on an ethics issue in a state where Dems have absolute control, how can he influence a divided Congress as president? Imagine the fun McCain would have with that in a debate (”I’ve worked across the aisle in the Congress to pass McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc, and my opponent can’t even influence his own mentor back home on a major ethics bill”). Asking Obama to call home and urge Emil to move off the dime on the ethics bill is a little like asking Sarah Palin to give a major address on the Bush doctrine. It’s contrived as hell and there’s a ton of downside (both endeavors could flop). I’m really surprised that so many people are beating the drum over this here at home. And the argument that Barack shuld intervene because “he’s still our U.S. senator” is totally weak. Just as Rich was correct in asserting that the world passed Emil by when he announced his retirement, so has the landscape changed for Barack, at least until November (and certainly beyond November if he wins). And speaking of upcoming power changes, why get our shorts in a knot over this ethics bill when we’ll have a new Senate president in January?
- Justice - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:48 pm:
This is Obama’s way of voting ‘present’. Why in the world would he want to intercede in something that is presently getting mud on everyone involved. Like was said, this mess will be with us for a long time, well after the elections. He is wise to steer clear.
- BandCamp - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:51 pm:
Senator Obama has been a strong and consistent advocate of ethics and lobbying reform. Here
Obama’s own website. Here
And if that isn’t enough, here’s where he made a phone call to push ethics reform (so he does know how to work a phone).
Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who addressed the convention Monday night, also has speaking roles at various state delegations during the week. On Tuesday, she comes before the convention a second time to participate in a panel of women Democratic senators.
She told the story Monday night of getting a call from Obama on her way out to Washington after winning election a couple of years ago. Even before leaving the driveway, Klobuchar said, Obama asked her to organize freshmen Democratic senators in a conference call to build support for ethics legislation.
“He said we need to get this bill passed right away, or we’ll lose momentum,” she said in a telephone interview from Denver Monday afternoon ahead of her speech. “So by the time we got to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, we had all the freshmen on a call, by the time we got to Washington we had a plan in place.”
AND…Puh-leese. Emil defying Obama? Nuh-uh.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:54 pm:
Who’s to say Obama has not made the call already?
I agree with TUHS. If Jones says no Obama looks bad. If he’s made the call and Emil said no, I doubt the Obama would publicize it.
- absolutely anon - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:55 pm:
I work for an agency that is filled with friends of Mr. Jones. Most of them are at the “top” and earning $100,000/yr. plus. His wife works there and according to the Sun Times link to public salaries is earning $187,000+. Obama is between a rock and a hard place. Unlicensed surgeon is right. But the ethics bill isn’t about Emil. It is totally about Blago. Ask any state employee how nauseated they become when they are forced to take the annual ethnics “training” created by Mr. “let me make this bill better” while his appointees and friends of Mr. Jones stuff themselves at the public trough. Obama is right to distance himself from the corruption in Illinois - but there are a lot of people who still can’t help but wonder about the validity of the adage “you’re known by the company you keep.”
- Irish - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 12:58 pm:
If these three were any other three I could see Barack getting involved. If these three hadn’t gone beyond every rational thought and/or action I could see Barack getting involved. But they are not they are who they are and I agree with those that say there is nothing but downside for Barack in this. I don’t think Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissenger, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Mother Thersa TOGETHER could get these three to make nice and work together.
- BandCamp - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 1:06 pm:
What downside is there? McCain has been firing at Obama for months. The only dent he has made in the polls is because of the Palin announcement, wrapped around the Republican convention being after the Dems. Obama is stale right now, and him trying to get his home state to make real strides in ethics reform can’t hurt him on that issue alone. “The company you keep” stuff only plays here in Illinois. And he’s no Rod Blagojevich.
We’re not asking to solve all Illinois’ problems, just show that he is still our Senator.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 1:10 pm:
Kadner is wrong, and here’s why.
The bulk of the “ethics” bill is really a campaign finance reform bill.
Campaign finance reform legislation is essential because you can’t get one party to disarm unilaterally.
- The Unlicensed Hand Surgeon - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 1:49 pm:
I seem to recall Dick Durbin making an offhanded comment a few months back about how he’d rather mediate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the Statehouse war. Durbin is our U.S. senator too. Does he get a pass?
- some people call me "Maurice" - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 2:06 pm:
The only independent left is Willie Delgado, He knows alot of people at the capitol. Willie would not let this happen! Lets throw Willie’s name in for prez.of the senate. GO Willie! Frank Watson might like the compromise.
- Snidely Whiplash - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 4:29 pm:
“I seem to recall Dick Durbin making an offhanded comment a few months back about how he’d rather mediate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the Statehouse war. Durbin is our U.S. senator too. Does he get a pass?”
Well, Sobbing Dick isn’t running for president claiming to be the supreme reformer and agent of change. He just likes to cry as he’s apologizing for his mistakes. ;)
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 4:31 pm:
UPDATE: Obama calls Jones
- Lefty Lefty - Wednesday, Sep 17, 08 @ 5:11 pm:
As far as Kadner’s take is concerned, making something actually illegal instead of just distasteful or ethically questionable is of great benefit. Instead of pay-to-play being a political issue, it becomes a legal issue. Even if someone (let’s call him “Public Official A”) think it’s OK to do in order to “get things done,” it can’t be done legally.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my Republican father-in-law about 10 years ago concerning Iran-Contra. I said the Reagan administration broke the law. He said, “But the Democratic Congress made the law.” I told him if that’s the best excuse you can come up with, we’ve got some serious problems coming in this country. And I was right. Yay me.