* 3:43 pm - Legislators and others have been grumbling about former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s executive order last August which barred the state from handing out contracts to contractors which contributed to legislative campaigns, and campaigns for those seeking statewide offices. The EO was roundly derided as unconstitutional, but nobody had the stones to challenge it in court. Here’s some background.
On Friday, without any notice that I’m aware of, Gov. Quinn issued Executive Order 9 which repealed the Blagojevich EO…
WHEREAS, the Illinois General Assembly passed HB 824 on May 31, 2008 and sent this bill to the former Governor for his signature on June 30, 2008; and
WHEREAS, HB 824 amended the Illinois Election Code to provide new requirements for business entities (and affiliated entities and persons) receiving or bidding for certain State contracts to register with the State Board of Elections and amended the Illinois Procurement Code to include limitations on the campaign contributions of such business (and affiliated entities and persons) to State officeholders responsible for awarding these contracts; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2008, the former Governor issued Executive Order Number 3 (2008), which addressed certain of the same subjects as HB 824, and then issued an amendatory veto of HB 824 one day later; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly overrode this amendatory veto on September 22, 2008, thereby enacting HB 824 into law as Public Act 095-0971; and
WHEREAS, Public Act 095-0971 and Executive Order Number 3 each had an effective date of January 1, 2009; and
WHEREAS, since January 1, 2009, there has been uncertainty and confusion regarding the scope of Executive Order Number 3 and its relationship to Public Act 095-0971; and
WHEREAS, the Illinois Reform Commission has proposed a number of legislative changes addressing the subjects of campaign finance and procurement reform and is planning further initiatives; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly’s Joint Committee on Government Reform is similarly considering campaign finance and procurement reforms; and
WHEREAS, in light of these pending reform initiatives, the context in which Executive Order Number 3 was issued, and the uncertainty of its scope, it would be appropriate to rescind Executive Order Number 3 (2008):
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Pat Quinn, as Governor of the State of Illinois, do hereby order that Executive Order Number 3 (2008) be revoked and rescinded, effective as of this date of issuance.
He had to really stretch on that one.
* Also in little-noticed (until now) Friday action…
A judge has ruled state officials can’t force pharmacists to dispense the so-called “morning-after” pill.
Two Illinois pharmacists won the temporary restraining order in Sangamon County Circuit Court on Friday.
They claim a 2005 order from former Gov. Rod Blagojevich that they must dispense such pills violates state law prohibiting enforcement of health care decisions over religious objections.
More here.
LIVE session coverage...
- Plutocrat03 - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 4:13 pm:
Gov. Quinn, the populist is quickly turning into a business as usual office holder. I hoped for better from him.
I rarely applaud the courts intervention in matters of conscience, but I support tho restraining order as well as a future accommodation for issues related to conscience
- Rail - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 4:59 pm:
When I heard a couple of weeks that Quinn had agreed to do this, I was surprised. It shows again that it is easy to criticize from the outside and that it is interesting to see how perspectives change when one is in power.
- Pollyanna - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 5:14 pm:
Unbelievable. I am throughly disgusted. The populist has now found out that in order to deal with the legislature he has to cut back room deals to preserve their ability to fund raise. Is that in the best interest of the “people.” How on any level does this further “reform”? It just lets the money interests assert influence on government through donations to the legislature and the other consitutional officers. Obviously, if the legislature could get Quinn to go against what he has campaigned on for years, they(Madigan et al) could certainly get him to hire the contractors who donate to them and the legislature will continue to help-through action or inaction- those who donate to them and their leaders.
This goes to show you that there is no white night in Illinois politics. In order to govern you have to put aside your ideals and cut deals with a legislature-and more importantly its leaders- that is more interested in fatting their campaign accounts for their own personal interests than advocating the true interests of the state. This clearly shows that indictment or not, money still dominates illinois politics. If Quinn can succomb to these pressures anyone can.
Now, I assume the “true” reformer Lisa M will come aout against recinding the EO. Just unbelievable.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 5:19 pm:
Pollyanna, try to take a breath. The EO was likely unconstitutional to begin with and only done to shield Blagojevich’s behind.
Caterpillar - one of the state’s largest employers - was included in the contri ban, as was the Medical Society because of some rental agreements.
- George - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 5:38 pm:
“Caterpillar - one of the state’s largest employers - was included in the contri ban, as was the Medical Society because of some rental agreements.”
hmmm… what would Illinois be like without Caterpillar and the Med Society prowling over our elected officials?
(Imagines the possibilities)
- Pollyanna - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 5:59 pm:
How much more is it going to cost the taxpayers because companies are now going to feel compelled to donate and will therefore have to increase there bids to cover the “cost” of donations. Also, I think it most likely was consitutional which is why the back room deal was cut as opposed to getting some group that wanted to donate but felt constrained to challenge it. Today the taxpayers lose once again at the expense of special interests and business as usual. There is no good reason for Pat Quinn to recind the ban-Blago’s reasons for implimenting it(assuming they were not pure) are not relevant.
- sal-says - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 6:13 pm:
Hmmmm. Maybe ‘reformer’ Quinn ain’t the answer either?
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 7:14 pm:
I would have waited until the legislature passed some ethics reforms in this area before making a move like this. What does he gain right about now through this action?
- phocion - Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 6:13 am:
Rich is absolutely correct about the unconstitutional nature of the previous EO. In fact, it also has jeopardized Illinois’ federal funding - a fact oddly ignored by most media in this age of federal stimulus.
- Ghost - Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 8:08 am:
Pollyanna, since the procurement law requires the State to go with the lowest resposible bidder, it would be a bad idea for a bidder to “pad” their bid. I doubt this has any impact on what we pay for services. The EO violated the first amendment, perhaps we should be more concerned with removing illegal acts then supporting unlawful blago actions which pleased us.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 8:52 am:
The Governor ended what was unconstitutional.
The judge ended what was unconscionable.
- hmm - Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 8:58 am:
Phocion - you are thinking of the bill passed by the legislature. And they fixed that.
- phocion - Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 9:09 am:
No, hmmm. It was Blago’s EO that caused the U.S. DOT to threaten to cut transportation dollars to Illinois. It wasn’t “fixed” by any legislative action. IDOT tried to “clarify” in a stopgap opinion, but this thing was coming to a head with the stimulus dollars starting to come in.
- Cassandra - Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 9:10 am:
I think we need to judge Quinn’s overall efforts on ethics reform by the end of this session before passing judgment. So far, I haven’t been impressed but we have the huge advantage of being able to throw him out in a short time, February 2010, to be precise, if we believe he has performed poorly. After Feb 2010, if he loses the primary, he’ll be totally without consequence. But between now and Feb we have no excuse for not paying close attention to what he and his (mostly Blago holdover) staff are up to with respect to ethics, standing up to state employee unions and to corporate interests, tax hits on the middle class, and other issues. We should ignore the rhetoric about his view of himself as a “populist” and watch what he actually does. So far, as I said above, I’m not impressed. But I’m pleased that I can effectively “recall” him in Feb.
- Pollyanna - Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 9:28 am:
Read tHe EO. It specifically excludes the Federal money with a savings clause. House Bill One violated the Federal Law and had to be changed. The EO is as consitutional as HB 1.