There seems to be a deliberate misunderstanding by some state Senate Republicans these days.
They’re claiming that Gov. Pat Quinn’s nomination of Terry Cosgrove to the Illinois Human Rights Commission is a disgusting example of “pay to play” politics.
But that’s just silly.
Pay to play means I give you something so that you’ll give me something.
For instance, Gov. Rod Blagojevich wanted to engage in some pay to play when he sought out campaign contributions, a job for himself or his wife and other nefarious things in exchange for appointing somebody to the U.S. Senate.
Now, that’s pay to play. All the way.
State contractors were banned from contributing to gubernatorial candidates because their businesses and, therefore, their personal bank accounts, could directly benefit by the outcomes of those races. State employees are barred from donating to the governor for the very same reason.
But governors in every state have a long history of appointing political supporters to state boards and commissions.
And this appointment is no different.
Cosgrove runs Personal PAC, a pro-choice group that raises and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars every campaign season. Cosgrove also has a long history of working for gay rights. He helped pass a human rights ordinance in Champaign and Urbana decades ago.
Last year, Cosgrove cranked up his fund-raising machine for Quinn.
State Sen. Bill Brady, Quinn’s Republican opponent, was (and remains) 100 percent pro-life. Brady is for no exceptions for rape or incest.
Cosgrove jumped in with both feet, spending more than $400,000 to beat Brady, whom he saw as the greatest threat to his pro-choice cause in many a year.
Brady led in almost all the polls right up to the end and then just barely lost to Quinn on Election Day.
One of Brady’s top campaign staffers told me after the election that Cosgrove’s direct mail and cable TV ads in the northern suburbs were what tipped the balance to Quinn.
So, as you might expect, the Republicans are not at all pleased with Cosgrove’s nomination.
And because they can’t just come right out and say that their avowed political enemy shouldn’t be appointed to a state commission, they’ve taken to calling the move “play to play.”
Ridiculous.
This is pure politics attempting to hide behind corruption allegations.
It’s merely an attempt at political payback for the crushing defeat of one of their colleagues last year. No more, no less.
To consider this a corrupt act, you’d have to believe that Cosgrove supported Quinn simply because he wanted to snag a plum job.
Anybody who knows Cosgrove realizes this is crazy bunk.
He went after Brady because Brady presented himself as a gigantic, scary target. Personal PAC’s whole reason for existence is to keep people like Brady out of office.
Now, if you want to say that no campaign supporter should ever be appointed to a state job, well, maybe we can talk.
I think the idea would be way overboard, but, OK, let’s kick it around.
Extending that logic too far out would mean, however, that the Senate Republicans couldn’t put people on their state staff who worked campaigns last year — which would be most of them.
You could argue that Cosgrove doesn’t have the “neutral” temperament required to serve on the Human Rights Commission. I might not disagree with you there. He has never been a neutral sort of guy. But to claim that this appointment, which was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday, is somehow corrupt is little more than political posturing. I really hope the media doesn’t fall for this game.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:01 am:
No. To paraphrase a famous Illinoisan: Of course I hired my friends. Do you expect me to hire my enemies?
We have Rutan, Shakman and other laws because civil service jobs should be free of political hiring/firing. But policy jobs are exempt. Elected officials need to have supporters in policy jobs to implement, you know, policy.
These charges of pay to play are diminishing actual pay to play. Next time the GOP cries “wolf,” will anyone believe them?
This stuff breeds voter cynicism and a “they’re all crooks” mentality. That’s not good for anyone.
- Richard Afflis - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:02 am:
I think it is more than good for people who are active in the campaign process to get political jobs. If you participated, you have already demonstrated some loyalty. If I had two equally qualified candidates for a job and one participated while the other did not, I would feel more comfortable with the one who participated.
Having said that, it is important that the person who gets the job first of all does the job, secondly, provides the service to the constituency in a responsible manner. Government service is a responsibility. Some public servants survive administration changes because they do their jobs and do it in a competent, responsible manner.
- just sayin' - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:08 am:
Good column.
“Ridiculous.” That’s a good summary of the state of the GOP in Illinois. It’s a big reason why 2012 will be one of the biggest disasters yet for the IL GOP.
And yet all they do is sit around complaining, pointing fingers, and playing ridiculous games.
Oh, and to answer the question. Supporters should absolutely NOT be prohibited from later hiring. Too few people get involved as it is without giving that excuse as a reason not to volunteer. So campaign spokesman couldn’t become administration spokesman? Crazy, and all those Repubs know it.
- reformer - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:11 am:
The last three Republican governors all appointed campaign supporters to various boards. I never heard Republicans complain about pay to play when Ryan, Edgar and Thompson did it.
Is the GOP turning over a new leaf, or is it just rank, partisan hypocrisy?
- Capitol View - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:18 am:
Another argument for public support for most or all of political campaigns for major offices.
The Koch Brothers can contribute millions without wanting to be on a conservative candidate’s staff - so what is so damaging about $25 or even $100 to a person that you would like to see serve in public office?
- Robert - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:24 am:
sometimes ethical rules can go too far…if you were elected governor, who would you hire? Several experts you don’t know, but you’d also want to hire folks who you know and whose judgment you trust, and those folks likely supported your campaign.
- RWP - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:25 am:
It is silly to think that any administration at any level should rid itself, or by extension, government from people who support it. That is not to say we should have any tolerance for people being forced or encouraged to “buy” jobs or be hired for jobs they can not preform simply because they supported a candidate during the campaign.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:26 am:
No, it’s too silly to even contemplate. There’s a big difference between quid pro quo for employment and hiring people you know that supported you and your objectives.
- frustrated GOP - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:31 am:
we don’t want nobody, nobody sent. That said, why shouldn’t we hire the people who we trust to run our campaigns or contribute to the cause. Do we look at the way campaigns are run to see how someone might run their respective office? Their most trusted people should be able to move on to government to attempt the change they have advocated for the last 12 months.
- Secret Square - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:32 am:
Cosgrove is committed to the protection and advancement of a practice (abortion on demand) that I consider morally abhorrent, and for that reason alone, I could not in good conscience have voted for his appointment were I a member of the Senate.
That being said, I DO NOT think his appointment counts as an example of “pay to play” in the unethical or criminal sense, and it is rather disengenuous of Republicans to claim that it is. Why would any governor NOT appoint people to his administration who had worked hard to get him elected?
If Republican or more conservative members of the GA have a problem with Cosgrove’s aggressively pro-abortion views, just say so and vote against him on that basis. I see nothing wrong with that. I’m sure liberal/Dem members would do the same if, for example, Brady had won and had appointed a strong pro-life supporter to the same post.
- the Other Anonymous - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:37 am:
People should not be able to “buy” an appointment. But people who are qualified should not be barred from getting an appointment to a position because the person supported a candidate financially. The test, as Rich points put, should be whether the contribution was made with the main intention of getting a financial benefit (state contract, job, appointment). So no, there should not be a blanket ban on appointing contributors.
One quick point about Terry Cosgrove: his group spent a lot of money on it’s history on Republican candidates. The impression that some Democrats have is that given the choice between a pro-choice Republican and a pro-choice Democrat, Personal PAC will prefer to spend money on the Republican. Keep that in mind when evaluating whether Cosgrove was appointed by Quinn as some sort of reward for contributing to Democrats.
- Responsa - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:37 am:
Of course, good and competent people who have shown support and loyalty to a pol should be able to serve in government and be appointed to appropriate jobs. Who are they going to appoint? Their enemies? Total unknowns? That said, no matter how strongly he feels personally or how eloquently Rich wrote his column, both the Cosgrove nomination and the prior Careen Gordon nomination do not pass the smell test for a lot of folks who normally are not particularly partisan.
Appearances should be weighed in making nominations and Quinn has shown an exceptionally deaf ear on that score on more than one occasion.
- CircularFiringSquad - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:37 am:
POLL ANSWER: NO
The premise of the complaint is nearly as dumb as the premise of the reformers and psuedo reformers who believe they should write all the campaign finance and government ethics laws even though they never sought or made a campaign donations or defended themselves from a smear attack from an unregulated group or anonymous source media report.
Nearly everyone supports a cause or candidate because they believe in the issue or the person or they OPPOSE the other side.
They are not looking some sweet deal.
As soon as more folks start making the point the phonies will move on.
Have a great weekend
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:53 am:
Absolutely not. Campaigns are a way people can prove their work ethic and loyalty, why should an elected official be forced to choose staff from people he or she has never worked with?
- I mean really - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:56 am:
Pretty unbelievable coming from the Republicans and the Brady folks. Ask around Central Illinois. His campain supporters already knew who was going to be appointed to what…and they were shopping for houses in Springfield. Come on guys, make issues out of real problems. Lord knows we have them.
- Palatine - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 11:57 am:
Poll Answer no. Thats just silly. Perhaps the winner should hire the loser.
- Louis Howe - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 12:11 pm:
Harry Truman once was asked at a press conference:
Q: Mr. President, this morning’s Washington Post has an editorial saying it thinks you ought to appoint a lot of Republicans…
A: I’m a Democrat
If the incumbent party screws up, voters showed throw them out of office, but at least, the screw-ups ought to be from the party being called to account.
- anon sequitor - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 12:22 pm:
NO.
I’m going to borrow a Tea Party premise, which is don’t compromise your principles just for political expediency. Therefore, why would Quinn - or Brady if he had won - appoint people who don’t support their principles or point of view of government?
- Loop Lady - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 12:24 pm:
I doubt Mr. Cosgrove is in dire need of the salary that comes with the appointment…as a gay man who helps women gain access to reproductive health care, (not just sbortions) he no doubt knows firsthand what it feels like to be discriminated against, and has dedicated his career life to helping women empower themselves.
I just can’t understand what Quinn was thinking with this appointment…
- Ghost - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 12:32 pm:
being able to run an office requires you have people you can turst in key positions and working for you.
I see no problem allowing supporters, or family members WHO ARE QUALIFIED for a job to have the job. Thhe beggining and end of any discussion about a hiree or appointee should be their qualifications. If you can find a qualified family member or supporter, your odds of being able to operate just increased a bit.
- Cook County Commoner - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 12:33 pm:
I come from the school of thought that all money should be eliminated from politics. Hirng contributors and campaign workers gives the appearance of impropriety. If someone could come up with workable federal and state constitutional amendments to eliminate all money in politics, shorten campaigns, provide fair elections with out the need of Axelrods, eliminate the rich candidate advantage, etc., I would sign up. Quid pro quo is not always apparent. I just don’t trust a politician that has to have his or her hand out all the time.
- siriusly - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 12:50 pm:
Of course not. What is a problem is pay-to-play or political support in exchange for an appointment. Clearly that is not the case here as you well stated Rich.
This accusation by the SGOP is just as irresponsible as Representative Crespo’s bill which essentially states that anyone who does some lobbying work is unfit to hold public office. The wholesale character assassination doesn’t help anyone.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 12:52 pm:
Is it pay to play? No, not on its face if you exclude other factors.
It is a political appointment. Fine.
The opposition was also political. Somehow that isn’t fine with Rich and many others. Why the double standard?
Do Republicans have a right to point out that that his organization donated $400,000.00 to Patrick Quinn’s campaign, the same Patrick Quinn who is now appointing him to that paid position? Yes.
Does Dan Duffy favor the jailing of all females who have had abortions? No. How about other Republican candidates he tagged that false statement to? Does the maker of that deliberately false statement have the right to expect that no one will ask him about his false statement during the appointment process? No.
As a Hearing Commissioner for the Illinois Department of Human Rights, is it appropriate to appoint someone to a position with that agency who has strong views on some serious topics that the agency has? Can someone with such strong views be fair in deciding cases? Sounds like a “no.”
To sum up based on the above, were Republicans correct in strongly opposing this nomination? Yes.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 1:07 pm:
Louis, I have no problem with them opposing the nomination. That’s their right. I do have a big problem with them calling the cops for no good reason.
- D.P. Gumby - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 1:40 pm:
Good column Rich. I was looking for how this could possibly be “pay to play” in any way and couldn’t find it. It’s interesting that at the same time we have Repub in DC claiming defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR and EPA are necessary for reducing the deficit we have Repubs in Il. making this bogus charge. Does anyone actually listen when they are talking??
- double standard - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 2:14 pm:
so an individual can’t make a contribution and get an appointment or job, but an interest group can? the labor backed appointments to the collective bargaining boards (workers comp etc) have completely ended any objective view these boards have and call into question their ability to function in an even handed way. We do need to get special interest politcs out of the appointment process but how you do it is another question.
- Logic not emotion - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 2:50 pm:
I answered no; but I do think there is some level at which it should be considered questionable. I.e. if someone donates $50 in some fashion to your campaign, they are probably not expecting much in return. If they donate a lot more, then it seems more questionable.
It is doubtful that Cosgrove took those actions to get a state job so I don’t see a quid pro quo or pay to play; but especially in light of his impact on the election results, it seems very likely that Quinn feels indebted to him for doing so and that Cosgrove would relish the opportunity to have great influence with the HRC.
I understand political paybacks and rewarding supporters and people of like mind; but I still feel that part of the Governor’s job should be to appoint the best qualified people to positions in which they will carry out their duties in an unbiased, objective manner. It certainly sounds like Cosgrove is very knowledgeable. Can he carry out the position’s duties in an unbiased, objective manner? I don’t know him or his track record so I don’t know; but it sounds like that may be questionable… In a nutshell…
I don’t see pay to play; but I do see a number of questionable appointments in a number of top positions. But… He won so he’s the one who gets to make them. If Brady had, he might have done something similiar.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 3:28 pm:
Rich, no good reason? $400,000 is an awful lot of money. And who called the cops?
The GOP engaged in some perfectly acceptable payback to the man who fashioned and crowed about “putting women behind bars” pieces falsely used against Duffy and other Republicans.
I didn’t see the word “ridiculous” describe that 1 + 1 = 3 conclusion back then. But I do feel it is ridiculous to appoint someone with some extreme prejudices to become a hearing official/officer hearing some pretty sensitive cases. I don’t think that “fair” and “open minded” are standards to be ignored in appointments, but that is just my 2 cents on this appointment.
Or am I just cranky because it’s Friday afternoon and I want to start an early weekend . . . and can’t!
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 3:33 pm:
===And who called the cops? ===
By claiming an illegal act occurred, that would be calling the coppers.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 3:35 pm:
Again, go with the political attacks. Fine with me. Just don’t cover yourself by claiming that Quinn broke the law.
- 3rd Generation Chicago - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 4:25 pm:
If you donate a small amount, maybe $100 or less, then you should certainly not be barred.
When you are talking about thousands of dollars..hmm, it may be like buying a job.