Question of the day
Monday, Sep 27, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Despite all my complaints about the news business today, the Decatur Herald & Review is doing a bang-up job covering the 101st House District race between Rep. Bob Flider (D-Mt. Zion) and Adam Brown (R-Decatur). This is from a recent editorial about that campaign…
At issue is a $250 contribution Brown’s campaign accepted in June from Dunn Co., a local construction contractor. Before being named to run for Flider’s seat, Brown voted on a couple of street reconstruction contracts that were awarded to Dunn Co. Another vote in favor of another Dunn Co. contact came a week after his campaign contribution.
All projects were bid out by city staff, and many of the votes appeared on the council’s “consent agenda,” which means they are considered a routine item. None of the votes by Brown swayed the decision in Dunn Co.’s favor.
Flider said that Brown is “misleading voters. The fact is, Adam Brown claims to be a fresh face, but he is just more of the same. Adam Brown’s actions stink of pay-to-play politics, and that’s something we need to leave behind in Illinois.”
Brown’s record as a city council member is fair game as he tries to move to the state legislature. But it’s a stretch to call this anything like “pay to play” politics.
I agreed with this editorial in my subscriber-only publication last week. A $250 contribution is hardly serious graft. More importantly, though, this was a routine, perfunctory roll call. Brown played no role in who got what.
A buddy of mine called me this morning to agree with my assessment in last Friday’s subscriber-only publication about the allegation…
With all the real corruption this state has faced, it’s probably expected that everybody will try to paint their opponent as being on the take this year. But this sort of false claim needlessly poisons an already toxic atmosphere and will only make things worse.
But he also asked a question. What really is pay to play?
* The Tribune ran a pretty convoluted piece about Speaker Madigan involving himself in the choice of a village attorney for a town in his district and about Madigan representing and investing in a company that wants to develop some land near a planned tollway exit. Madigan’s spokesman responded to my subscriber-only story with this e-mail today…
— Madigan’s law firm does not represent developers at the stage that precedes development (in this case one firm has option on some land while another has asked the village about property, etc)
— and in more case does not represent a property until the real estate phase of the process, which of course has nothing to do with the host community.
— and Madigan’s firm is not the exclusive property tax firm for either company
— and current practice has property tax law firms BIDDING for the work.
* The Question: What’s your definition of “pay to play”?
- Vote Quimby! - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 1:15 pm:
Pay to play: (1) when one is required to give up something of monetary value to another in exchange something of perceived greater monetary value under the second party’s control. (2) politically correct term for “shakedown.” Example: “I’ve got something that’s (bleeping) golden and I’m not giving it up for nothing.”
Antonym: “avoiding any appearance of impropriety.”
- 47th Ward - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 1:15 pm:
I have a rather broad definition, but it can be boiled down to this:
If you consider any factor in the awarding of a public contract, job or other official act, other than merit and taxpayer value, this is corrupt.
Generally speaking, for the overwhelming majority of pay-to-play, the “other” factor is political campaign contributions. The insiders pay to be insiders, then they become first in line for info on how best to prepare a bid. There are a smaller number of instances when a public official gets some personal gain, but generally speaking, it’s campaign contributions in exchange for official acts.
When a contractor makes a donation after winning a bid (although now mostly illegal), that can be a gray area. But it stunk so bad in Illinois that we banned the practice. What does that tell you?
- Irish - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 1:15 pm:
I think the State’s ethics test explains it the best and since I am assuming all elected officials and employees take the test it should be understood.
It basically says that any donation, favor, gift, from any entity or person that does/has/will do business with the state should be considered unethical, whether it is illegal or not, and should not be accepted.
- PublicWatchDog - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 1:22 pm:
The short definition of ‘pay-to-play’ is: the 6th floor of the County Building which houses the Cook County Board of Review; the poster child for pay-to-play.
The longer definition would be: property tax lawyers and law firms that understand tribute must be paid to Commissioners Rogers Jr., Berrios and Houlihan, in the form of campaign contributions, to secure the assessment reductions they count on to impress their clients - Mr. Madigan’s firm employs a more circuitous route, than simply turning over a check, since he controls the enormous resources of the state Democratic Party. That unique regimen relates to transfers into the county party and individual campaigns — presently sanctioned under the ‘new’ ethics laws.
Rogers Jr. and Berrios, holding Houlihan’s hand while leading him to the trough, have collectively amassed millions of dollars in contributions; the imponderable majority of which has come from those that practice before the Board of Review. In a slightly modified characterization, it would be ‘pay-before-you-play.’
- Easy - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 1:27 pm:
Maybe something like purposely holding up bills until after the election?
- Anonymous - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 1:41 pm:
Giving something of value to an elected official or government employee with the mutual UNDERSTANDING or AGREEMENT by both parties that the recipient will give something of value in turn.
Plese note the emphasis on UNDERSTANDING/AGREEMENT. Without one or both of these requirements, in my mind it is not PAY TO PLAY.
- Cheryl44 - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 1:51 pm:
Pay to play: http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/2747602,CST-NWS-watchdogs27.article
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 1:53 pm:
1) Giving something of value that ordianrily would not get in a normal course of business or if the course of business is circumvented or bastardized in the ‘pay for play’ ie. rigged contract, and the public official is rewarded for that special consideration given exclusively for the first party.
2) Ensuring something of value is agreed upon to occur or is rewarded for another action taken (or even not taken) to the benefit of the first party by the public official. Note: the action in of itself followed legal means. ie. fundraiser for public offical for agreed upon outcome.
BTW, thanks for the Runner-Up on the Caption Contest, Rich. Haven’t been close to winning since I won with the SLC campaign sign photo.
- D.P. Gumby - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 1:54 pm:
I agree w/ Anonymous. Irish takes it too far; one cannot say that anything is unethical. Quimby may not be quite far enough, though the difference between Quimby and Anonymous may not be very great. The “pay to play” must have some element of quid pro quo, not just a perception of a “culture”. A law firm that does work for the State is also going to make contributions to state candidates. That does not make it “pay to play” unless one is giving $x contrib to x official for x jobs.
- Wensicia - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 1:59 pm:
I would say, not being allowed to play unless you pay is a dead giveaway to the practice, if any politicain is stupid enough to point this out while being recorded by the FBI. On the other hand, it’s hard to prove when all of the players contribute to any given politician’s campaign. You can easily point out the person who benefits is not the only contributor to your campaign.
- KeepSmiling - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 2:23 pm:
I see it as when an individual or firm is asked or “suggested” to do something by an individual or entity, in order to receive future or pending consideration by that same person or entity. It’s when hard work, high quality and a fair price cannot get you on the ladder (or in the game), only money or a favor can.
- Ghost - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 2:25 pm:
I see it as in order to get a contract/job/favorable oridnance or get funding for it you are required to make a donation. i.e. quid pro quo. And without the donation/payment you would be unable to get what you are seeking.
- well - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 2:40 pm:
[snark] Joe Berrios [/snark]
- The CARDINAL - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 2:45 pm:
ghost is spot on i would say.
- I don't want to live in Teabagistan - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 2:46 pm:
Blago: Hey Jesse. Wanna be Senator? Then give me $1 million.
Jesse (after checking his “Hindi to English Translation” book): Um, OK.
- Irish - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 2:53 pm:
A representative of the administration is meeting with a potential vendor to sign a contract. When the vendor walks in on the table lay the contract and next to it are $250.00 worth of fundraiser tickets.
Nothing is said, no explanations, no agreements are reached, the vendor picks up the tickets, and signs the contract. Isn’t that blatant pay to play?
A roofing contractor who knows that you might have roofing projects coming up sees you out and buys you a nice dinner and drinks. You don’t know him very well but he is now your best friend. Any break he gets after that whether real or perceived becomes suspect. As is repeated over and over in the test. “Anything that could be perceived by the public as unethical, should not be done.”
Or from what others are saying is it the amount of money? Where is the line drawn? This reminds me of the old story about the guy who offers a young lady one million dollars to sleep with him. She shows some interest. He then asks if she would for $500.00. She replies indignantly ” Does he think she is a prostitue?” His reply” We have established that. We are now arguing over the price.”
- Bill - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 2:53 pm:
Pay to play—the current way political campaigns are funded in Illinois and the rest of the US.
- Ghost of John Brown - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 2:54 pm:
How about a couple of real life examples that I’ve experienced. I’ll keep it purposely vague. These are from a number of years ago.
- A call from someone at a municipality - “I’m calling in support of {Mayor’s pet project}. I know your firm has gotten a lot of work from the City, so I’m sure you’d like to help out”
- Getting fundraising letters from politicians only a week or so after getting on a local government’s “pre-qualified list” and knowing that the only way that they had my name and address was from that list.
- Getting work from an agency for years before a “changing of the guard” and then getting nothing for a couple of years until we went to a fundraiser and then magically, we started to get work again.
- Showing up at a politican function to see the main staff person at the function. No “list” has to be given to the staff person because they can see us all there and they know who has given to their boss.
I think I can speak for most professional services companies when I say that few of us really enjoy going to “rubber-chicken” dinners to hang around politicians. Most of us would MUCH rather be selected based on how good we are as professionals, not how much we pony up to politicians. Unfortunately, most of us have to cough up money to politicians just to “level the playing field” because we know that our competition has given thousands.
The GOOD professional services firms would LOVE a ban on campaign contributions if you have a contract. The professional services firms that aren’t that good don’t want to see a ban because in some cases, that’s the only way that they get work.
- a.l.byrd - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 3:05 pm:
Any time you play golf with Joe Berrios and your taxes go down.
- wordslinger - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 3:11 pm:
We should probably go to the experts and ask the Cellinis.
- bored now - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 3:21 pm:
regardless of what bill implies, pay to play is not a common term in the rest of the country. there are a *few* states that endeavor to compete with illinois (new jersey is a wonderful example), but most states not only have ethics standards, but actual efforts to enforce those standards (although generally on a meager scale).
i like the first definition of pay to play that i ever heard here: you get what you pay for. when i ventured to suggest that, well, the taxpayers paid their salary, i was quickly corrected. “it’s not a bribe, it’s just how we do things here.” or something like that…
- Cincinnatus - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 3:24 pm:
Instant disclosure of ALL contribution goes a long way to addressing part of this issue. The problems lie when the “donation” is hidden within outdated disclosure agreements. Watchdog groups and reporters (if they aren’t too lazy) can provide an invaluable function to policing the politicians. And with an easy to use website (NOT the ISBE method of burying the info to all but the most patient) completes a transparency component. We should also eliminate donation caps.
Otherwise, whatever laws cover bribery cover the rest.
- envelop - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 3:28 pm:
Pay to play is a club. There are $50 memberships and $1000 memebships (and higher). If you join the club, you have certain expecations, ranging from I won’t get fired to I’ll get the contract to I’ll get the riverboat license. Politicians own the club, theri staffas are club employees. olans expect membeship, and once you are a memebr, their staffs knwo who gave $50 and who gave $1000. The entire relationship is driven by money; money out (to the politicains), and money back (political favors funded by taxpayer dollars). Its symbiotic. No money out, not money back. more rarely, money back, then money out later. Want to end all that? Public financing of elections. Corruption gone.
- truthteller - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 3:29 pm:
I would vote for an actual quid pro quo, here’s your check, and hey here’s yours in exchange.
While there is certainly some percentage of contributions to politicos from friends and family and their direct lines that are made with no profit and/or influence motive, as someone intimately involved and familiar with fund raising the majority of money (and calls for money) go to those with a direct interest in the issues of that particular office holder or candidate sphere of influence.
You hear it many times from donors when they don’t get what they want that they should be taken off the call and invite list.
Rich, why do you think people give? If its not for a specific materials gain it is at least for access and even if that access is not for persoanl gain if it is for personal influence what’s the real difference.
Money for elections and access is the worst aspect of the entire political system. It means candidates either have to be wealthy, have a bunch of wealthy friends or be very comfortable with spending hours on the phone every day dialing for dollars. Who thinks that is a good background for ‘public service?”
- KeepSmiling - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 3:52 pm:
So for example, over the last 3-5 years the COGs in the Chicago area have decided to offer corporate membership to private firms in exchange for “visibility” with local elected officials. Yep, you bet, lots of engineering firms. Prices I’ve seen range from $500 to as high as $10,000. Can I afford not to pay $1,000 if my competitors are? If I’m going to propose even as a subconsultant on a professional services contract with the COG or a member municipality, shouldn’t I be wary of submitting with a Prime who has not contributed to the cause?
- envelop - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 3:57 pm:
By the way, pay to play is done with the tacit consent of the media. Politicians shake down people for campaign money. Campaign money (a lot of it ) is used to buy media ads in print, radio, and Tv at election time. If there was public funding of elections, the newspapers radio and Tv would take a big hit on heir revenue streams. Wonder why there isn’t a lot of public debate about public finanacing in the media? Because that isn’t in THEIR interets. The media enables political pay to play because the media profits from it. As politcal dollars triclke down from those who donate to those who receive the donation to those who receive the expenditures from those donations.
- SAP - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 4:22 pm:
Can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.
- Reddbyrd - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 4:24 pm:
Capt Fax:
An early poster made comment about the Madigan firm and board of review and assessor.
The poster should be reminded that the zealots at the Tribune poured over 23,000+ files relating to properties represented by the Madigan firm.They spent months and asked other practioners to explain decisions… At the end of the day they reported ZERO examples of special or improper treatment. ZERO. It seems like all the jaw bangers ought to understand that.
- Reddbyrd - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 4:28 pm:
Opps we forgot to note that the best measure of exactly how convouluted and non newsy the Madgian story was there were ZERO pick-ups or follow-up by other news organzations. Usually whenever the Tribune far.. opps sneezes AP rewrites the story.
Also the Tribune parked their slop in a web section that allows no comments. Guess they don’t want any feedback
- Anonymous - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 4:35 pm:
Guaranteeing no layoffs or facility closings in exchange for union membership election support.
- Just sayin - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 8:48 pm:
IL GOP has a funny website spoofing Madigan: Madiganville.com
- gallerywalker - Monday, Sep 27, 10 @ 10:02 pm:
Would this qualify…”Fighting back tears and apologizing to his teenage daughters, the former head of the Illinois prison system was sentenced to two years in federal prison Wednesday for taking payoffs from lobbyists.”