* After the Rod Blagojevich scandal, Illinois banned campaign contributions to constitutional officers from businesses and people who have state contracts of higher than $50,000 with those officers. Today, Sen. Matt Murphy held a press conference to demand action on his bill to ban public employee unions with state contracts of higher than $50,000. From his press release…
The legislation, SB 2988, sponsored by State Senator Matt Murphy (R-Palatine), was developed in conjunction with the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity, a free-market advocacy group.
It will apply the same restrictions on donations that were enacted two years ago for private companies that do business with state agencies. A vendor that does over $50,000 of business with the state is now prohibited from donating any funds to a candidate who may oversee that company’s contract. However, a loophole was left in the 2010 bill to allow government unions that negotiate employee contracts worth hundreds of millions to continue to donate huge amounts to politicians in charge of those contracts.
The bill would mean that Gov. Quinn could not receive contributions from AFSCME and other public employee unions. Other constitutionals who have union contracts would also be barred from receiving contributions.
* A representative from the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity was also at today’s press conference. Here’s that group’s press release…
Today Americans for Prosperity – Illinois (AFP-IL) announced its support for SB 2988, legislation which will prohibit government unions from contributing campaign funds to the state constitutional officers with whom they negotiate their collective bargaining contracts. At a press conference with Senator Matt Murphy and the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, AFP-IL State Director David From explained his support for the bill:
“Taxpayers should always take precedence over the demands of special interests – whether they be corporations or unions. Unfortunately, a loophole allows state officials to take large campaign contributions from the very government unions they sit across from at the negotiating table supposedly representing the interests of the taxpayers.”
A few years ago, in the wake of the Blagojevich scandals, state legislators and Gov. Quinn saw fit to put an end to “pay to play” deals by banning contractors with over $50,000 in state business from contributing to the state constitutional officer who oversees their contract.
But inexplicably this does not apply to government unions negotiating millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded contracts each year. In fact, right now the Governor’s Office is negotiating a massive contract with the AFSCME, the largest union representing Illinois state workers, and one of Gov. Quinn’s largest campaign contributors.
“The largest campaign contributors to many of Illinois’ statewide officials are the powerful government unions like SEIU, AFSCME, IEA and others. This loophole in our state’s finance laws allows these powerful special interests to be the largest campaign contributors to the very person who negotiates their contracts,” From continued.
I don’t think you need legislation to keep unions from contributing to Quinn right about now, lol.
The Koch boys should stay up north with the Cheeseheads and keep bringing their own peculiar definition of prosperity up there.
Wisconsin has the worst job growth record of the 50 states since Walker took office. Kiplinger is out today showing Illinois at #7 for job growth in 2012.
I don’t see how this would be unfair. The purpose of the existing contribution ban is to keep parties that stand to profit from an elected official’s decision from unduly influencing that official through contributions.
And considering the obscene display we saw in 2010 when Quinn pledged no layoffs, and then AFSCME immediately turned around and contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign, I’d say it’s needed.
Unless I’m mistaken, the law still allows companies that contract with the state to form or be members of Political Action Committees that give to the governor.
Given that AFSCME does not directly give to candidates, but rather gives on behalf of its members through Political Action Committees, I’m not sure what the disparity is.
Moreover, an organization giving $50,000 on behalf of 90,000 members is much different than a private company giving $50,000 on behalf of its corporate interests. Let’s keep in mind that for-profit companies are duty-bound to spend their money to maximize profit, so when a company writes a check like that, a quid pro quo is more than just implied, its inherent.
Oftentimes, as was the case with Quinn v. Brady, union PACs support one candidate not because they expect something in return, but because they know that what they can expect from the alternative is abhorrent.
==Moreover, an organization giving $50,000 on behalf of 90,000 members is much different than a private company giving $50,000 on behalf of its corporate interests.==
Uh, no.
AFSCME gives $50,000 on behalf of 90,000 members. AT&T gives on behalf of millions of shareholders. Where’s the difference?
==Let’s keep in mind that for-profit companies are duty-bound to spend their money to maximize profit, so when a company writes a check like that, a quid pro quo is more than just implied, its inherent.==
So unions aren’t duty-bound to spend their members’ dues money to maximize their well-being? That’s good to know. Good thing for the unions Illinois isn’t a right to work state.
An excellent idea but it should also cover legislators who, as we have seen recently, can not provide funding for a union contract through the appropriations process.
If as you claim AT&T is representing the interests of its “millions of shareholders,” the vast majority of whom are outside of Illinois, and many of whom are from outside the US, that’s even more of a reason to ban their contributions.
But I think you’ll find mountains of evidence to suggest corporate boards represent one solitary interest — maximizing profits — which might align with their shareholders interests, but might not.
For example, raising phone rates, which many shareholders pay, not exactly in their personal best interests.
Long overdue. Most contractors under the current ban operate under a sealed bid process. So their contributions cannot affect whether or not they get a contract. A union, however, negotiates with the Governor. Contributions to him under those circumstances is an outrageous conflict of interest. And just plain unethical. Do the right thing, Governor, and stand for the highest degree of ethics. Support this bill.
Hmmm so AFSCME couldn’t give Quinn a 50k check and an endorsement while securing a no lay off pledge the same time. Yeah afscme and Quinn were on the up and up there.
Nice sideshow. This stands about as much chance of passing as Social Security being amended to allow full retirement at 62 at 80% of a worker’s highest wage with a 3% COLA. Or of the state constitution’s pension impairment clause being repealed. Or of my Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky, saying she’ll stop collecting her $20,000 plus Illinois state legislative pension because she makes plenty on her US Congressional pay, and it just looks bad.
Maybe folks will wake up when the state tacks teacher retirements onto their property tax.
==But I think you’ll find mountains of evidence to suggest corporate boards represent one solitary interest — maximizing profits — which might align with their shareholders interests, but might not.
For example, raising phone rates, which many shareholders pay, not exactly in their personal best interests.==
You are aware that corporations are owned by their shareholders, correct? Maximizing profits IS acting in the shareholders’ best interests.
The fact of the matter is, both AT&T and AFSCME want to maximize their shareholders’ or members’ well-being, and will, given the chance, influence politicians to make decision that will help them achieve their goal.
If we, as a state, decide that AT&T shouldn’t be allowed to contribute to an elected official who oversees state business from AT&T, why should AFSCME be treated any differently?
This bill is discriminatory, either ban contributions from all unions or none. I think this is offensive and another attempt to hide politicians fromj the people they hurt!
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:24 pm:
Everyone forgets that union members are not all Democrats. There are a significant number of Republicans who watch their mandatory dues that are directly taken out of their paychecks go to Democrats and hardly ever to a Republican.
A shareholder can dump stock in a corporation that donates in a manner inconsistent with his or her beliefs. A union member does not have that option.
No matter how many loopholes you close, more will pop up.
== Most contractors under the current ban operate under a sealed bid process. So their contributions cannot affect whether or not they get a contract. ==
Only in the high school civics version of how the process works!!
This has zero chance of passing, but it did increase the chances that the Koch’s fund an Illinois SuperPAC to support Murphy for Governor, so congratulations Matt Murphy … for using the Stratton Building for your fundraising event.
If they’re fair share their dues don’t go to PACs. I hate when people benefiting from union membership vote republican, their dues should entirely going to make sure they don’t get their ill conceived wish. You think Quinn’s screwed AFSCME, just imagine what Brady would have done. Oh yeah, about that pension thing everyone’s worked up about, I’m sure Brady would have left it as is.
Their goal is to create a set of rules to make it easier to defeat their political adversary, but it could backfire. I would like to see someone sponsor an ammendment to also exclude anyone from out of state from contributing to campaigns, and would also exclude any company which paid more than $50,000 in total taxes to the state.
I’m not able to read the Chamber’s (or Murphy’s) thinking here. Why bring down associates of one of the most notorious super PAC’s to have a press conference to plea for separating money from politics? What does that do besides make them look like massive hypocrites? Are they using this for some fundraising of their own?
Can’t Matt Murphy find a way to beat back the unions without being surrounded by multi-millionaires whose mission in life is to beat back the unions. Despicable.
“Cheswick” & “sangamo better blues” have both asked great questions…considering that the superpac “We Mean Business”, which was established to beat back against unions, recently gave $5K to Murphy’s campaign fund, I wonder if the reform minded Senator would include limitations from such PACS as “We Mean Business” or just those on the opposing side of his opinions???
I actually agree with this legislation, if the State is going to limit organizations from contributing money, they should treat everyone equally. In the end, both are doing business with the State.
I would have left the Koch brothers and the Illinois Chamber out of it, both seem to be a litle goofy right now.
YDD, AFSME looks out for their own corporate interests as well.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander - close the damn unethical loop hole so everyone shuts the hell up and gets back to business, government work or not.
We live in Illinois. I don’t care what is happening in Wisconsin. We screwed ourselves without a single Koch, Walker or Cheesehead involved. Focus on the math, not the politics.
Why would the Koch Brothers organization do a press conference on this? It seems like it defeats their purpose - their presence serves to remind people how much corporate money there is in politics, meaning people would be more open to keeping the union money in as a balance.
Unions put Quinn in.. cut some deals & spent hundreds of thousands of dues in & other money doing so in the 11th hour , to outspend & control the process for thier interests & agenda not only here but around the country. Look what they got for it. You’d think them giving any more to Quinn in their case would be a no-brainer not requiring legislation. Quinn has & is about to give it to them again. Contract & the injunction against closures & lay-off’s ends June 30th. Doesn’t sound like any of that is going too well. There won’t be any extension or compromise there you can almost bet. Don’t know who runs the politics at AFSCME but isn’t doning do a very good job. Maybe less time at rally’s & more time trying to work through some of these serious problems. They were thinking the lesser of two evils I guess when they backed Quinn & speculating of what Brady may or may not have done which seems to be thier standard default mechanisim when it’s not going their way. Thinking maybe $$ limits to AFSCME , labor in general, big business & other similar organizations. Not sure on a ban. Then where would that stop.
It seems to me that if you restrict the donations of one, you have to restrict the other. You should not favor one group who does business with the state over another group.
You also have to understand that AFSCME donating to and supporting Quinn had nothing at all to do with supporting the best interests of their members. AFSCME is in 100% with the Progressive aganda, and Quinn proudly leads the Progressive movement, and bragged about it during the election. You can find evidence of this in AFSCMEs reaction to the closing of Tamms C.C.. All AFSCME can say on it is we need more taxes. They dont mention that the Quinn administration started laying the ground work to close Tamms two years ago when the Vera Intitute was brought in to guide the Dept. of Corrections in ending segregation all together. AFSCME is only spouting more taxes and more Progressive agenda, and ignoring that Quinn is not even honest about why he is closing Tamms.
There is no more of a chance that AFSCME will back a Republican than there is that Americans for Prosperity will support a Democrat. If you restrict one, restrict the other. Or allow both to donate to who ever they want.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:30 am:
I don’t think you need legislation to keep unions from contributing to Quinn right about now, lol.
The Koch boys should stay up north with the Cheeseheads and keep bringing their own peculiar definition of prosperity up there.
Wisconsin has the worst job growth record of the 50 states since Walker took office. Kiplinger is out today showing Illinois at #7 for job growth in 2012.
http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/top-10-states-for-job-creation-2012/8.html
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/142860605.html
- Tom B. - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:30 am:
So the union forms a super pac and then doesn’t talk to Quinn ever and probably spends their own money better (from their perspective).
Know who we get to thank for that happenstance? The John Roberts Supreme Court.
- Allen Skillicorn - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:30 am:
Would that also include inkind donations, like mailings and volunteers?
- so.... - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:31 am:
I don’t see how this would be unfair. The purpose of the existing contribution ban is to keep parties that stand to profit from an elected official’s decision from unduly influencing that official through contributions.
And considering the obscene display we saw in 2010 when Quinn pledged no layoffs, and then AFSCME immediately turned around and contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign, I’d say it’s needed.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:33 am:
Unless I’m mistaken, the law still allows companies that contract with the state to form or be members of Political Action Committees that give to the governor.
Given that AFSCME does not directly give to candidates, but rather gives on behalf of its members through Political Action Committees, I’m not sure what the disparity is.
Moreover, an organization giving $50,000 on behalf of 90,000 members is much different than a private company giving $50,000 on behalf of its corporate interests. Let’s keep in mind that for-profit companies are duty-bound to spend their money to maximize profit, so when a company writes a check like that, a quid pro quo is more than just implied, its inherent.
Oftentimes, as was the case with Quinn v. Brady, union PACs support one candidate not because they expect something in return, but because they know that what they can expect from the alternative is abhorrent.
- so.... - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:38 am:
==Moreover, an organization giving $50,000 on behalf of 90,000 members is much different than a private company giving $50,000 on behalf of its corporate interests.==
Uh, no.
AFSCME gives $50,000 on behalf of 90,000 members. AT&T gives on behalf of millions of shareholders. Where’s the difference?
==Let’s keep in mind that for-profit companies are duty-bound to spend their money to maximize profit, so when a company writes a check like that, a quid pro quo is more than just implied, its inherent.==
So unions aren’t duty-bound to spend their members’ dues money to maximize their well-being? That’s good to know. Good thing for the unions Illinois isn’t a right to work state.
- kerfuffle - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:40 am:
An excellent idea but it should also cover legislators who, as we have seen recently, can not provide funding for a union contract through the appropriations process.
- Snidely - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:41 am:
The Illinois Chamber is really digging in with the 1% with Scott Walker last week and Koch Bros. this week.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:44 am:
Can’t they stay in Wisconsin and leave us alone?
- Irish - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:48 am:
What YDD said
- Gouda - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:48 am:
Sounds fair to me.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:51 am:
@so -
If as you claim AT&T is representing the interests of its “millions of shareholders,” the vast majority of whom are outside of Illinois, and many of whom are from outside the US, that’s even more of a reason to ban their contributions.
But I think you’ll find mountains of evidence to suggest corporate boards represent one solitary interest — maximizing profits — which might align with their shareholders interests, but might not.
For example, raising phone rates, which many shareholders pay, not exactly in their personal best interests.
- Emanuel Kant - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:52 am:
Long overdue. Most contractors under the current ban operate under a sealed bid process. So their contributions cannot affect whether or not they get a contract. A union, however, negotiates with the Governor. Contributions to him under those circumstances is an outrageous conflict of interest. And just plain unethical. Do the right thing, Governor, and stand for the highest degree of ethics. Support this bill.
- Fed up - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 11:55 am:
Hmmm so AFSCME couldn’t give Quinn a 50k check and an endorsement while securing a no lay off pledge the same time. Yeah afscme and Quinn were on the up and up there.
- Mouthy - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:01 pm:
“Taxpayers should always take precedence over the demands of special interests – whether they be corporations or unions.”
They’ve made the demand and as an Illinois Taxpayer I say “Take a Hike” and since I have precedence they should be on the move….north.
- Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:01 pm:
Nice sideshow. This stands about as much chance of passing as Social Security being amended to allow full retirement at 62 at 80% of a worker’s highest wage with a 3% COLA. Or of the state constitution’s pension impairment clause being repealed. Or of my Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky, saying she’ll stop collecting her $20,000 plus Illinois state legislative pension because she makes plenty on her US Congressional pay, and it just looks bad.
Maybe folks will wake up when the state tacks teacher retirements onto their property tax.
- so.... - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:01 pm:
==But I think you’ll find mountains of evidence to suggest corporate boards represent one solitary interest — maximizing profits — which might align with their shareholders interests, but might not.
For example, raising phone rates, which many shareholders pay, not exactly in their personal best interests.==
You are aware that corporations are owned by their shareholders, correct? Maximizing profits IS acting in the shareholders’ best interests.
The fact of the matter is, both AT&T and AFSCME want to maximize their shareholders’ or members’ well-being, and will, given the chance, influence politicians to make decision that will help them achieve their goal.
If we, as a state, decide that AT&T shouldn’t be allowed to contribute to an elected official who oversees state business from AT&T, why should AFSCME be treated any differently?
- BMAN - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:01 pm:
This bill is discriminatory, either ban contributions from all unions or none. I think this is offensive and another attempt to hide politicians fromj the people they hurt!
- BuckStar - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:03 pm:
Heck, Murphy is the special interest!
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:24 pm:
Everyone forgets that union members are not all Democrats. There are a significant number of Republicans who watch their mandatory dues that are directly taken out of their paychecks go to Democrats and hardly ever to a Republican.
A shareholder can dump stock in a corporation that donates in a manner inconsistent with his or her beliefs. A union member does not have that option.
No matter how many loopholes you close, more will pop up.
- BCross - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:33 pm:
== Most contractors under the current ban operate under a sealed bid process. So their contributions cannot affect whether or not they get a contract. ==
Only in the high school civics version of how the process works!!
- The Captain - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:37 pm:
This has zero chance of passing, but it did increase the chances that the Koch’s fund an Illinois SuperPAC to support Murphy for Governor, so congratulations Matt Murphy … for using the Stratton Building for your fundraising event.
- Jimbo - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:39 pm:
If they’re fair share their dues don’t go to PACs. I hate when people benefiting from union membership vote republican, their dues should entirely going to make sure they don’t get their ill conceived wish. You think Quinn’s screwed AFSCME, just imagine what Brady would have done. Oh yeah, about that pension thing everyone’s worked up about, I’m sure Brady would have left it as is.
- D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 12:44 pm:
Thank you Citizens United and John Robert’s Supreme Court…
- AC - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 1:15 pm:
Their goal is to create a set of rules to make it easier to defeat their political adversary, but it could backfire. I would like to see someone sponsor an ammendment to also exclude anyone from out of state from contributing to campaigns, and would also exclude any company which paid more than $50,000 in total taxes to the state.
- sangamo better blues - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 1:42 pm:
I’m not able to read the Chamber’s (or Murphy’s) thinking here. Why bring down associates of one of the most notorious super PAC’s to have a press conference to plea for separating money from politics? What does that do besides make them look like massive hypocrites? Are they using this for some fundraising of their own?
- Cheswick - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 2:00 pm:
Can’t Matt Murphy find a way to beat back the unions without being surrounded by multi-millionaires whose mission in life is to beat back the unions. Despicable.
- factoid - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 2:09 pm:
“Cheswick” & “sangamo better blues” have both asked great questions…considering that the superpac “We Mean Business”, which was established to beat back against unions, recently gave $5K to Murphy’s campaign fund, I wonder if the reform minded Senator would include limitations from such PACS as “We Mean Business” or just those on the opposing side of his opinions???
- RetiredStateEmployee - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 2:20 pm:
Great! a special interest against other special interests not in their interest. No hypocrisy here.
- Boone Logan Square - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 2:35 pm:
There are not many arguments for nationalizing all economic assets, but the continued existence of the Koch brothers is a good one.
- Ahoy - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 3:18 pm:
I actually agree with this legislation, if the State is going to limit organizations from contributing money, they should treat everyone equally. In the end, both are doing business with the State.
I would have left the Koch brothers and the Illinois Chamber out of it, both seem to be a litle goofy right now.
YDD, AFSME looks out for their own corporate interests as well.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 3:52 pm:
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander - close the damn unethical loop hole so everyone shuts the hell up and gets back to business, government work or not.
We live in Illinois. I don’t care what is happening in Wisconsin. We screwed ourselves without a single Koch, Walker or Cheesehead involved. Focus on the math, not the politics.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 3:59 pm:
It doesn’t take a very cynical person to believe there was quid pro quo between the unions and Quinn’s pledge. Sounds like an overdue action.
- Robert - Thursday, Apr 26, 12 @ 5:00 pm:
Why would the Koch Brothers organization do a press conference on this? It seems like it defeats their purpose - their presence serves to remind people how much corporate money there is in politics, meaning people would be more open to keeping the union money in as a balance.
- annon - Friday, Apr 27, 12 @ 5:49 am:
Unions put Quinn in.. cut some deals & spent hundreds of thousands of dues in & other money doing so in the 11th hour , to outspend & control the process for thier interests & agenda not only here but around the country. Look what they got for it. You’d think them giving any more to Quinn in their case would be a no-brainer not requiring legislation. Quinn has & is about to give it to them again. Contract & the injunction against closures & lay-off’s ends June 30th. Doesn’t sound like any of that is going too well. There won’t be any extension or compromise there you can almost bet. Don’t know who runs the politics at AFSCME but isn’t doning do a very good job. Maybe less time at rally’s & more time trying to work through some of these serious problems. They were thinking the lesser of two evils I guess when they backed Quinn & speculating of what Brady may or may not have done which seems to be thier standard default mechanisim when it’s not going their way. Thinking maybe $$ limits to AFSCME , labor in general, big business & other similar organizations. Not sure on a ban. Then where would that stop.
- SO IL M - Friday, Apr 27, 12 @ 7:57 am:
It seems to me that if you restrict the donations of one, you have to restrict the other. You should not favor one group who does business with the state over another group.
You also have to understand that AFSCME donating to and supporting Quinn had nothing at all to do with supporting the best interests of their members. AFSCME is in 100% with the Progressive aganda, and Quinn proudly leads the Progressive movement, and bragged about it during the election. You can find evidence of this in AFSCMEs reaction to the closing of Tamms C.C.. All AFSCME can say on it is we need more taxes. They dont mention that the Quinn administration started laying the ground work to close Tamms two years ago when the Vera Intitute was brought in to guide the Dept. of Corrections in ending segregation all together. AFSCME is only spouting more taxes and more Progressive agenda, and ignoring that Quinn is not even honest about why he is closing Tamms.
There is no more of a chance that AFSCME will back a Republican than there is that Americans for Prosperity will support a Democrat. If you restrict one, restrict the other. Or allow both to donate to who ever they want.