* From a reader…

Hey Rich…

Check out the attached taxpayer-funded legislative mailing I received in the mail yesterday from my State Rep. Scott Drury. While all these types of mailings are arguably taxpayer-funded campaign mailings disguised as “information,” I have never seen one so cavalier in not even attempting to disguise itself as informative. It provides no value to the constituent and simply touts Scott Drury. It truly is campaigning on the taxpayers’ dime.

And I actually think, despite his reputation, that he is a decent legislator, but this is a very troubling mail piece.

Needless to say, if you choose to use this, please do not associate it with me — I have redacted my name and address from the mailing.

* Judge for yourself…

The address and phone number match up to his official legislative contacts.

       

27 Comments - Ghost - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:11 am: its campaigning, but it falls in the loop hole and is, unfortunetly pretty common. Would be smarter if he did a newsletter with status updates on “key” legislative peoposal kind of thing - Commander Norton - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:12 am: I’m not saying whether it is or isn’t crossing a line, but my understanding is that in the eyes of the Legislative Printing Unit, the inclusion of bill numbers attached to the proposals he’s touting make it legit. Also, it doesn’t mention an opponent, voting, an election, etc. Sure, it’s campaigning. But I’m not sure there’s a good place to draw that line without being subjective as long as it does reference actual legislation and doesn’t reference an election. - Juice - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:13 am: Agree that it reads more like a campaign mailer. But are we sure it was paid for with taxpayer dollars? I can’t read on there anything as to who paid for it, and just because the contact info is his government office doesn’t mean that it was the taxpayers who paid for it. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:14 am: Yeah, that’s a campaign mailer on the taxpayer dime. All it’s missing is “Vote for….” Maybe this egregious example will spark a move to get rid of taxpayer-financed legislator mailings altogether. Like the Congressional frank, they’re really indefensible in this age of instant communications. - RNUG - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:35 am: Agree with - Commander Norton - Having the bill numbers puts it just barely on the “safe” side of the line. - Marty Funkhouser - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:36 am: I’m surprised it doesn’t mention he’s a former federal prosecutor. - DuPage - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:37 am: I don’t see anything too unusual here. I get similar “informational” things in the mail from Jeanne Ives and Peter Roskam, especially around election time. - Spliff - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:40 am: …did you know he is a former US attorney? - downstate commissioner - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:40 am: Not any worse than any of the other mailings I get from my legislators. What I got was that I would vote for his opponent, based on the (only) subject addressed… - Sideline watcher - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:41 am: I thought the line was talking about contributions or the election or an opposing candidate. So people don’t want to get a mailing about what their legislator is doing? Or what they are proposing or passing? - Anon - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:47 am: Cavalier is a pretty good term — though I’m not really sure if it crosses the line. It certainly gets pretty close to it. If it was a small post card, I could see that format being helpful in reducing costs. It either needed more information, or an explanation of where to get more information, or asking to show support for the bill by contacting so and so. The front of the post card is really the campaign piece issue. That would have been better done with a smaller picture and maybe some bullet points. - Almost the Weekend - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:49 am: Change Scott Drury to Bruce Rauner I have a feeling the comments would be a little different LOL - Just Observing - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:53 am: “So people don’t want to get a mailing about what their legislator is doing?” This mailing does not inform constituents about what their legislator is doing. It is purely produced and mailed at taxpayer expense for the sole purpose of drumming up name recognition and political support. If it was truly designed to inform the constituents, it would be a very bland mailer with a very long list of bills and how the legislator voted. Cherry picking two bills on an issue that probably polls well in the district only serves Drury, not the electorate. There is no justification for this. - Responsa - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 10:59 am: The single focus of the mailer is what makes it a big problem. I get similar not so subtle campaign driven stuff from my rep but she is at least smart enough to include info on more than one issue and it nearly always includes a tear off questionnaire to at least pretend she wants to know what her constituents are thinking. - Roger Dorn - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 11:00 am: Well, it doesn’t say “Vote for Scott Drury”, so it’s a-okay for Illinois. - Dud lee do wrong - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 11:06 am: By the way have I told you that I am a former Assistant U.S Attorney? - Just Observing - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 11:06 am: === Well, it doesn’t say “Vote for Scott Drury”, so it’s a-okay for Illinois. === LOL - Springfieldish - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 11:09 am: Oh the irony! Scott Drury, taking the moral high-ground to vote against arbitration for state workers, leaving them only a strike as the last step in the negotiations because Drury saw his vote as upholding the “spirit” of collective bargaining regardless of the current “reality.” And now he issues a purely self-promotional, 99.9% campaigning, state-funded mailer, complying only with the ‘letter’ of the law, all the while stomping all over the spirit of it. Yeesh! Drury is a piece of work, - Sideline watcher - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 11:17 am: Just observing…I can see your point. - AlfondoGonz - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 11:18 am: Drury is a stroke. - Madame Defarge - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 11:26 am: Always beware of the Reformer–”The more they spoke of their honesty, the faster we counted the silverware” - burbanite - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 11:45 am: Looks like a campaign piece to me. Legal or illegal, I don’t appreciate my tax dollars being used for these types of mailers. I know he isn’t the only one, but that doesn’t make it right. Think about how much money could be saved if elected officials (at other levels too) didn’t/couldn’t use tax dollars to do this type of self promotion. - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 12:50 pm: The former federal prosecutor? Of all people… - A guy - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 1:02 pm: As Tom Jones might croon, “It’s not unusual..” Too bad it isn’t. But it isn’t. - Michael Westen - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 1:19 pm: A phony reformer? That’s strange. There are so few of those. - Worth It - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 3:27 pm: This is ethically over the line, not that anyone gives a damn any more. - Rhino Slider - Wednesday, Jul 20, 16 @ 4:12 pm: Now someone is worked up about it? Lisa Madigan always does a “consumer advocate” warning about 5 days before the legal deadline. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.