Forget about the budget, forget about Gov. Bruce Rauner’s “Turnaround Agenda,” forget about the almost unprecedented animosity during the spring legislative session between Democrats and Republicans.
The most talked-about issue under the Illinois Statehouse dome last week was a directive from one of the governor’s top staffers to all state agency directors.
The agency directors received an order from the Rauner administration last Wednesday demanding that they and their staffs not meet or talk with any lobbyists unless the governor’s Policy Office had first OK’d the communications. The directors were also told to inform agency “stakeholders” that they didn’t really need to hire lobbyists anyway.
The governor’s press office refused several entreaties to comment on the ban.
“We have continued concern about outside interests’ attempts to influence the use of state resources and state policy,” wrote Rauner’s Deputy Governor Trey Childress last week.
“As an extension of our efforts to curb the influence of these interests, we want to send a message loud and clear that constituents and stakeholders need not employ a lobbyist to voice their concerns or needs directly,” he continued.
“Until further notice, please coordinate with your department’s contact on the Governor’s policy team in advance of any meeting between your senior team members and registered lobbyists.”
When most people think of lobbyists, they think of them lobbying elected officials, particularly legislators.
But quite a few lobbyists have built careers exclusively lobbying state agencies. And many, many others regularly reach out to agencies on behalf of their clients or association members occasionally or even regularly.
Agencies write rules that impact pretty much every business and every group in Illinois. So, most hire lobbyists to make sure their voices are heard and they aren’t harmed.
Also, some groups and businesses receive state grants, for things like job training, or for providing human or other services, or they rely on other state money. No government ever runs smoothly all the time, so glitches can happen. And when they do, people often turn to their Springfield associations to help fix the problems.
So, adding a layer to this age-old process has the potential to really muck things up. It will add time and hassle.
And most folks don’t have the ability or the time to deal with our vast government bureaucracy. That’s why they hired lobbyists and/or joined statewide associations in the first place.
But there’s another angle here.
The Democratic Party controlled both legislative chambers and the governor’s office for twelve straight years.
That meant many Republican lobbyists were out of luck as Democratic staff, campaign operatives and even legislators decided to take up the lobbying business and existing Democratic lobbyists greatly expanded their businesses.
And after Gov. Rauner won his election last November, several Democratic state agency honchos left to lobby the folks they used to work with.
Rauner’s people obviously don’t want Democrats having contacts with their agency folks without them knowing about it. Controlling the bureaucracy is a very difficult task. Rauner is running the most top-down controlling governor’s office I’ve ever seen. So, this is at least partially designed to prevent surprises from happening down below.
But it will also mean that the governor’s office, which is thickly populated by former Republican campaign workers, will be able to lock out any Democrats they want.
So, those who employ Democratic lobbyists - or even Republicans who don’t show sufficient subservience and tribute to the governor - may very well soon ask why they’re paying those folks when they can’t get anything done.
Most lobbyists were shocked at the governor’s order, but some almost immediately came up with a plan to get around it.
Instead of contacting the agencies directly, they’ll ask their favorite legislators to make the calls. But that obviously won’t work for those who don’t lobby the General Assembly.
The Democrats fully exploited “the spoils of war” when they were running everything. The Republican governor is now doing the same, but in a particularly Raunerish way. Legislative Republicans are already bending over backwards whenever he commands. He’s now extending his power over much of the rest of the Statehouse crowd.
- Norseman - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:02 am:
This will get old really quick for the folks.
- Linus - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:03 am:
How long before the first news reports about the Governor’s state agency honchos talking with this or that gubernatorially friendly lobbying entity, contravening Rauner’s own orders?
Those stories will start to stack up alongside the articles about hypocrisy, subterfuge and lack of transparency re: education czars paid with human services $$, and so forth.
The more this guy points fingers and draws lines in the sand, the more he’s found to leap over those same lines.
- Casual Observer - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:11 am:
Put a muzzle on lobbyists then term limit legislators and he can control everything. He doesn’t need money but, I think, he lusts for power.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:11 am:
This approach won’t work.
Once again, Rauner is expanding government, not making it smaller. Forcing work done by lobbyists and agencies into bottlenecks won’t reduce or control policies. What we had until he got elected wasn’t the result of corruption or of stupidity. It is the result of results.
Adding a new layer of bureaucracy is never a good idea. It smothers innovations. What Rauner is doing is smothering any innovations which do not come out of his own mind. Rauner’s move isn’t what good governors do. Instead of learning how to make the current system work, Rauner is demanding that it end, and be replaced by what he does understand.
Rauner is once again showing that he hasn’t any idea how to use the governor’s office and doesn’t respect democracy. His meddling is going to make things worse than ever - not better.
What we are also seeing is a man elected governor who has no respect for representative government. He has an unhealthy disrespect for unions. This weekend, we’ve discovered that he has problems with any association or groups representing Illinoisans. What does this say about him?
Everything I attempt to answer that question, I run into apocalyptic statements which are downright hard to print. I can tactfully say, however, that Governor Rauner’s executive decisions have not been very “Illinois-friendly”.
Bruce Rauner would not be elected today if he had been open and honest during the campaign. He did not get elected to file bankruptcy, spread dis-union throughout the state, burn every bipartisan bridge built over the past generation, or shock governmental relations into a coma.
Bruce Rauner is losing his battle to sell Illinoisans on his “cash out your citizenship and become an independent contractor-consumer” in a world he and his friends own. So now, he is using his position as governor to gut us all.
- Precinct Captain - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:12 am:
==- Casual Observer - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:11 am:==
That lust is demonstrated by the need for “subservience” to his cult of personality. I wouldn’t be surprise if his biography says he was born under a rainbow.
- State employee - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:13 am:
Um, wow.
- very old soil - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:26 am:
What VMan said. This is insane.
- Skeptic - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:30 am:
So I’m guessing that in all his businesses, his managers aren’t allowed to talk to salesmen unless the salesmen talk to him first?
- Henry Moon - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:35 am:
Terrific good government move. There is no reason at all for lobbyists to lobby agency directors. Under Quinn, it was a cesspool of corrupt practice, intimidation, and favoritism.
- Give Me A Break - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:43 am:
This will be huge problem for state agency staff.
It needs to understood that often a lobbyist can ask a question of an state agency legislative director who can usually get them an answer within hours.
If you remove those lobbyist from using that method, now you may well have individual members of state-wide provider groups calling state agency program staff trying to get questions answered. So instead of one person asking the questions, state agency staff will likely get countless calls asking the same questions. Not a good use program staff’s time.
- CharlieKratos - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:44 am:
When everyone associated with government is painted as being corrupt by the governor and he says one thing and does another 95% of the time, why would anyone trust him? Why would the leg GOPs trust him? It sounds like the Dems for the most part understand that, despite the fact that he’s pledged to support “cooperative Dems”, he can’t be held to his word.
I think the governor needs to understand that, as in any relationship, mutual trust and respect are paramount. Money can’t buy love, happiness, or trust.
- phocion - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:46 am:
If I read the directive correctly, Rauner isn’t going after associations. In fact, he encouraged associations, trade groups, not-for-profits, etc. to ditch their lobbyists and handle the agency outreach on their own. Yes, a Republican Governor is targeting lobbyists who are largely Democrats. But he isn’t handcuffing the entities that the lobbyists represent. Good job security for association executive directors.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:48 am:
===. In fact, he encouraged associations, trade groups, not-for-profits, etc. to ditch their lobbyists and handle the agency outreach on their own===
The management of all those are almost always registered lobbyists themselves.
Sheesh.
- D.P.Gumby - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:49 am:
Ah, shaking up gov’t to run like a business….
- kimocat - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 11:03 am:
The order is pretty meaningless, really. Senior professional staff in large state agencies are well acquainted with industry reps. and quite often long time personal friends. And they aren’t going to talk to each other without permission from the Gov’s flunkies? Right.
- Linus - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 11:04 am:
== The management of all those are almost always registered lobbyists themselves. ==
What Rich said, in triplicate. Very few folks understand exactly who-all is barred from any conversations with state agency chiefs, under this new directive. In short: A lot of people with info that’s vital to those chiefs doing their jobs well.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 11:07 am:
===And they aren’t going to talk to each other without permission from the Gov’s flunkies? ===
I’m not sure you appreciate the real fear that Rauner and his people have imposed on those lower down the food chain.
- walker - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 11:13 am:
There’s potentially more, based on a strict interpretation of ethics controls.
Agency staff are often not allowed to talk directly to any Legislator either, without a member of the Governor’s Legislative Issues staff witnessing the call or meeting. They can easily simply direct the conversation to them on behalf of the Governor.
- LTSW - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 11:15 am:
Under Quinn’s administration we were ordered to talk with certain lobbyists on a frequent and recurring basis. Mostly social advocacy groups. Voices for Illinois Children had a huge say in DHS policy decisions. During the Illinois First days at DCCA/DCEO we received calls from lobbyists all the time on those grants.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 11:59 am:
This is another scheme to freeze AFSCME out, right?
- Shore - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 12:04 pm:
dc republicans tried a formal version of this called the k street project it was orchestrated by delay and ambramoff and you know the rest of the story. I get it from Rauner’s folks end but it seems like needless bureaucracy that leads to extra work for them.
pat brady also permanently lost any credibility he had with me and a lot of other people when he bragged to greg hinz after the election that this was a good time for his lobbying efforts. George Ryan apparently taught many in my party absolutely nothing sadly.
What I don’t care for is people sticking up for whining democratic lobbyists.
- RNUG - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 12:15 pm:
Just sitting here shaking my head. If I was still working, I’d be in violation of the new rules almost every day.
I crossed agency and management lines all the time; talking to people like bureau chiefs and deputy directors was just part of the job. That’s how you got things done. And I used to go to lunch with various lobbyists and multiple suppliers / competitors several times a week; it was mutually beneficial and we took turns paying for each others meals.
- econ prof - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 12:20 pm:
Rauner promised to “shake-up” Springfield, and apparently he’s fulfilling his campaign promise. The insiders are upset, but the general public isn’t sad that lobbyists aren’t getting access, so that’s a tough sell for Democrats.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 12:29 pm:
===that’s a tough sell for Democrats. ===
lol
It’s not like this is campaign ad material.
- JS Mill - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 12:45 pm:
Sometimes, the more control you exert, or try to exert, translates into loss if control.
I don’t see this as productive, and I am not trying to make a case for the lobbyists. I just don’t see an upside.
- Amuzing Myself - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 12:46 pm:
I sort of understand why Rauner would do this, but I would caution him after seeing Blago do this when he took over in 2003. I remember liaisons not being allowed to interact even with legislators for a while back then - sort of the whole point of a liaison - and how badly things went for that gov at the State House. Speaking from experience, agencies and industry (a.k.a. lobbyists) communicating openly helps avoid surprises that delay or even unnecessarily kill good legislation/projects and can get a whole lot more done for the state and taxpayers than waiting for the other side to blink in a standoff.
- kimocat - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 12:59 pm:
==I’m not sure you appreciate the real fear that Rauner and his people have imposed on those lower down the food chain.== Perhaps I don’t, but if it is really that bad, he is creating a miserable climate for conduct of state business and big incentive for the best and brightest to bug out.
- zonz - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 1:12 pm:
please coordinate with your department’s contact on the Governor’s policy team in advance of any meeting between your senior team members and registered lobbyists.”
and if your department’s contact is elsewhere engaged . . . sit on your hands and wait
_______________________
- Norseman - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:02 am:
This will get old really quick for the folks.
- Capitol View - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 1:23 pm:
classic First Amendment violation. Wildly unconstitutional.
Who wants to be the first to file a complaint here?
- zonz - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 1:59 pm:
Question: is it true that the directive only applies to meetings?
___________________
(25 ILCS 170/2) (from Ch. 63, par. 172)
Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, committee, association, corporation, or any other organization or group of persons.
(b) “Expenditure” means a payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, and includes a contract, promise, or agreement, whether or not legally enforceable, to make an expenditure, for the ultimate purpose of influencing executive, legislative, or administrative action, other than compensation as defined in subsection (d).
(c) “Official” means:
(1) the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, State Treasurer, and State Comptroller;
(2) Chiefs of Staff for officials described in item (1);
(3) Cabinet members of any elected constitutional officer, including Directors, Assistant Directors and Chief Legal Counsel or General Counsel;
(4) Members of the General Assembly; and
(5) Members of any board, commission, authority, or task force of the State authorized or created by State law or by executive order of the Governor.
(d) “Compensation” means any money, thing of value or financial benefits received or to be received in return for services rendered or to be rendered, for lobbying as defined in subsection (e).
. . .
(e) “Lobby” and “lobbying” means any communication with an official of the executive or legislative branch of State government as defined in subsection (c) for the ultimate purpose of influencing any executive, legislative, or administrative action.
(f) “Influencing” means any communication, action, reportable expenditure as prescribed in Section 6 or other means used to promote, support, affect, modify, oppose or delay any executive, legislative or administrative action or to promote goodwill with officials as defined in subsection (c).
(g) “Executive action” means the proposal, drafting, development, consideration, amendment, adoption, approval, promulgation, issuance, modification, rejection or postponement by a State entity of a rule, regulation, order, decision, determination, contractual arrangement, purchasing agreement or other quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial action or proceeding.
(h) “Legislative action” means the development, drafting, introduction, consideration, modification, adoption, rejection, review, enactment, or passage or defeat of any bill, amendment, resolution, report, nomination, administrative rule or other matter by either house of the General Assembly or a committee thereof, or by a legislator. Legislative action also means the action of the Governor in approving or vetoing any bill or portion thereof, and the action of the Governor or any agency in the development of a proposal for introduction in the legislature.
(i) “Administrative action” means the execution or rejection of any rule, regulation, legislative rule, standard, fee, rate, contractual arrangement, purchasing agreement or other delegated legislative or quasi-legislative action to be taken or withheld by any executive agency, department, board or commission of the State.
- Juice - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 2:01 pm:
Is it fair to ask “Will the new John Wyma please stand up?”
- anonymous - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 2:13 pm:
“The management of all those [associations, trade groups, not-for-profits, etc.] are almost always registered lobbyists themselves.”
Sheesh is an understatement, Rich. You are exactly right! In order to talk to legislators, we have to be registered lobbyists by law. Also, many, many association, human service, etc. leaders (who are registered lobbyists) are also appointed to agency task forces, advisory groups, etc. How’s that going to work?
- anonymous - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 2:17 pm:
With respect to my last comment - management as registered lobbyists is especially true of small organizations like mine that can’t afford a contract lobbyists, but do sometimes need to lobby. So, small groups whose leadership are registered lobbyists are the most likely to lose their voice!
- zonz - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 2:18 pm:
@ Henry Moon,
You are obviously a good source to help me understand, because you know this stuff. Can you elaborate on two things you wrote?
*** On your point below, is it true across all agencies? At which agencies do you feel such lobbying would be appropriate/OK?
“good government move. There is no reason at all for lobbyists to lobby agency directors.”
*** Can you tell me, say, a half dozen agencies where your point below was most true, and what made this evident?
“Under Quinn, it was a cesspool of corrupt practice, intimidation, and favoritism.”
________________
- Henry Moon - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 10:35 am:
Terrific good government move. There is no reason at all for lobbyists to lobby agency directors. Under Quinn, it was a cesspool of corrupt practice, intimidation, and favoritism.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 2:25 pm:
===There is no reason at all for lobbyists to lobby agency directors===
Says somebody who has no clue whatsoever about how government works.
- Chad - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 2:39 pm:
Shore makes a good point in his comment about contractors who openly brag about preferred access. But, this strikes me as somewhat practical on Rauner’s part. Why have contract lobbyists dedicated to the enemy camp running freely across the executive enterprise intent on undoing his orders, continuing the preferences for Dem.-supporting commercial interests and inserting more Dem. patronage workers into the system? Culling back access will help him reorganize the agencies and begin making the state employee base once again a 2-party element.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 2:43 pm:
“Says somebody who has no clue whatsoever about how government works.”
Exactly. There is tons of communication between state agencies and lobbyists, even down at the mid-level. For one thing, it’s how agencies get factions across the spectrum to compromise when agencies draft rules. Forbidding contact with lobbyists — who are stakeholders affected by state rules — could severely hamper how regulations are drafted and enforced.
Or, the GO could decide to lock out one faction or another, which could very negatively impact a lot of people — ordinary people, not just corporate executives.
- zonz - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 2:43 pm:
Waiting for the other shoe . . .
Olive Garden’s Hedge Fund Bosses Waited Tables
Hedge funder who took control of Olive Garden waited tables there to learn more about the company. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-01/olive-garden-s-hedge-fund-bosses-waited-tables-to-aid-turnaround
“It was an amazing experience. We felt we could not make the decisions without knowing what was happening in the restaurants.”
- Nick Name - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 2:44 pm:
“Says somebody who has no clue whatsoever about how government works.”
Exactly. There is tons of communication between state agencies and lobbyists, even down at the mid-level. For one thing, it’s how agencies get factions across the spectrum to compromise when agencies draft rules. Forbidding contact with lobbyists — who are stakeholders affected by state rules — could severely hamper how regulations are drafted and enforced.
Or, the GO could decide to lock out one faction or another, which could very negatively impact a lot of people — ordinary people, not just corporate executives.
- ArchPundit - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 2:45 pm:
===There is no reason at all for lobbyists to lobby agency directors.
So then the only time there should be any interaction is in written response to the rule making process?
I know for some the word lobbyist is a dirty word, but nearly every interest out there has them. There is a problem of some interests having more representation than others, but that’s as true in the lege, perhaps more so.
Having a back and forth between agencies and interest groups saves a lot of time and helps craft better implementation. If you want to know how to regulate a hog farm you probably want to talk to a hog farmer. You don’t want to just do as they say, but they can be helpful in crafting solutions.
Are there captured agencies? Absolutely, but this won’t solve that problem.
- Secret Square - Monday, Jun 1, 15 @ 3:44 pm:
“So then the only time there should be any interaction is in written response to the rule making process?”
Some agencies already function that way based on a super strict interpretation of “ex parte” communication rules.