Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to today’s edition
Next Post: Pritzker plans fly-around to highlight new capital bill
Posted in:
* Background is here if you need it. Susan Garrett at the Center for Illinois Politics…
Capitol Fax’s Rich Miller did us all a favor when he highlighted part of an NBC Chicago clip covering Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s trips to Washington, D.C. and other political destinations funded by his campaign committee.
No laws were broken here. I readily acknowledge that, but also noted in the clip that “It’s never been done before in Illinois.”
I want to put that statement into further context, as some might be scratching their heads over the fact that Pritzker’s predecessor frequently made headlines for using his own personal wealth to supplement political activities.
But Pritzker takes things a step further. I was speaking to the record-breaking $170 million that he contributed to his own campaign, and more on top of that to supplement the salaries of his top lieutenants. Add in the private jet travel, and it’s fair to say that we are watching the governor continue to keep his campaign fund flush with personal cash and use it to subsidize executive branch expenses.
But as his personal funds seep into areas of government operations, we should ask whether private wealth has a role in funding public service?
Ultra wealthy governors using private funds has become a new reality in Illinois, as predecessor Bruce Rauner also used his own money in some similar ways. But Pritzker’s practice amplifies the trend - as the use of personal funds continues to grow to higher and higher levels with more money and more ways to spend it within our state government.
Some say that subsidizing the Governor’s office with personal funds is great because taxpayers are not footing the bill for these expenses. That brings us to the question: Is there a point where we draw the line on the amount of personal wealth the state’s highest elected official uses to cover state employee salaries, luxury travel and standard operations that have, in the past, always been paid for by the taxpayers of the state?
The Center for Illinois Politics is a nonpartisan, nonprofit data-driven organization that I recently founded with former state Sen. John Millner. We are interested in taking the public debate a step further and, as indicated by the responses to the Capitol Fax blog, there are differing and strong views on this topic. We would like to take this opportunity to openly discuss this important topic by hosting a public forum in the coming weeks.
We hope you’ll join us.
Susan Garrett
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 12:54 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to today’s edition
Next Post: Pritzker plans fly-around to highlight new capital bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The criticism of JB using his personal funds to fund public activities always stops short of explaining what exactly the concern is. I’m not saying the practice is (or is not) problematic, but I’d like to the opponents of the practice to better articulate the pitfalls.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:06 pm
So much hand wringing and pearl clutching going on here. She doesn’t mention how Governor Rauner bankrolled the restoration of an historic state asset.
I think the phrase she is looking for is “thank you, Governor.”
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:09 pm
If I were Susan Garrett, I would not highlight yesterday’s CapFax, unless I had not actually read the comments.
Comment by Jibba Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:11 pm
If i were Ms. Garrett… I’d probably focus on prepping… like what *she* supported as a legislator… maybe the statutes… I’d go as far and even remember there was a governor before Pritzker and his spending…
Wether Ms. Garrett finds being prepared herself is important, her last swing at this seems to point to…
“No, I really don’t care to be prepared, thanks.”
It’s a well written email, I’ll give them that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:11 pm
Hey why not have that conversation here!
On the topic of whether it’s appropriate for campaign funds to be spent on non-campaign expenses, I would like to start by asking whether it was appropriate for “Citizens for Susan Garrett” to spend money the way it has.
Starting with the appropriate question of why a retired senator has an active campaign account whose legal purpose is her own election and is still spending money.
Comment by Charlie Brown Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:14 pm
IDK…I think it might be a good dialog to have. The more I explore it the more I am interested to witness the hashing out of the problem.
I do think it is a problem simply for fact that I believe it may set up a system whereby someone of modest means is disadvantaged in state government. If it’s not a problem then why does
writing
BPIA™
hurt or uncomfortable?
I know from personal experience that the Pritzker administration is almost exclusively drawing senior management from the private sector.
Mistakes, some quite big and egregious,
are being made
Because the Private funded “whatever”
is preferred.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:17 pm
A better e-mail would have been to announce the event, not say how they’re going to announce the event. Furthermore this “announcement” should have come from the organization, not Garret who has now made it even more personal than it already was. She is just being reactionary to being embarrassed yesterday.
Garrett has a long history of making her politics personal, including demanding the firing of legislative liaisons and lobbyists working against her bills.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:20 pm
just not interested. so many more important things going on.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:21 pm
I am still waiting for the criminal investigation on how multiple times Judicially sealed wire-tap FBI recordings were obtained and used in Governor Rauner’s campaign advertisements.
Comment by Al Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:26 pm
There’s only so much give-a-hoot to go around and nobody has explained why this merits any of mine.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:28 pm
“keep his campaign fund flush with personal cash” That’s a big problem while Citizen’s United isn’t?
Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:37 pm
The right must be worried they will some day lose Illinois as their favorite punching bag. J.B. is getting things done and eventually I believe he is goi g to start working on the big ones like pensions and property taxes. Anything they can do to discredit and cause problems.
Comment by Southern Illinois Mayor Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:41 pm
I think its a good exercise.
Money buys influence. We saw it with Rauner and now, we’re seeing it with Pritzker. Are there red lines? Seems obvious that there are.
What’s interesting is that rank and file of both parties have now experienced what it’s like to be in both the in-crowd and the out-crowd, so you’d think there could be some good agreement on limits.
Personally, paying staff with private money seems obviously problematic. Paying/punishing legislators, like Rauner did, is wrong, too.
Good luck getting a leash on it.
Comment by cdog Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:46 pm
Was she horrified by Gov. Rauner?
Comment by Anon E Moose Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:47 pm
Regardless of how big his bank account is, if it’s not illegal then it shouldn’t be an issue. And yes he pays his staff well. He also doesn’t have the full 99 employees he’s allowed to have on his payroll. He wants the best of the best and if they are doing multiple jobs, let the Gov pay their salaries and let them be paid well.
He is saving us tax payers money. For once, we need it and deserve it. Garrett’s concerned that he is spending his own money to foot his bills. The next Governor, she will complain is spending tax payers money. It’s a never ending cycle.
Comment by Married2TheOtherSide Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:48 pm
I get the salary thing. Its questionable. But to get into an uproar over travel? Please. If they are spending any time worrying about that then they have too much time on their hands.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:48 pm
A governor using his own money to cover the costs that might otherwise be borne by the taxpayers of a flat-broke state is the topic that most urgently needs discussion right now? Or is that just on the Lake Forest cocktail party circuit?
Maybe they should spend some time just updating their website. Click on “Infrastructure” in the issues section and you get a link to two bills that went nowhere and a Trib article from March.
Comment by Moe Berg Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:50 pm
What about the secret six. the 6 Chicago businessmen who help fund efforts against Al Capone. That was private money going into crime fighting.
Perhaps a little more private money might help us.
Sometimes those who have gained the most actually get that they need to step in and give more to make a correction in the system.
Comment by frustrated GOP Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:51 pm
To be honest, the salary supplementing doesnt sit well with me. Speaking of, did they ever release that info?
Having some public discourse around that unusual action is healthy. Pearl clutching about travel dilutes from the legit issue.
Comment by Centennial Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:55 pm
I happen to think Garrett is on the right path here. Holding a public forum will allow for all views to be presented. Is there a reason not to have the discussion?
Comment by Truth Teller Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:58 pm
Travel not an issue for me. However as to salaries if they are too low they should be raise but probably will not happen because Governor is subsidizing them. So then if we ever get a non rich governor and he wants to fill positions they would be really low by then and he/she would not have means to subsidize them.
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:58 pm
For the love of Pete. . .perhaps Garrett could get an exemption from the January 1 effective date for recreational cannabis and chill out immediately.
Comment by Lt. Guv Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 1:59 pm
This sounds like some off the cuff remark by Susan Garrett yesterday that is treated like a white paper. I don’t think it’s about his use of a jet or supplementary salaries or any one particular thing the Governor is doing. I think it is a good idea that we should talk about the role of wealth in politics. Governor Pritzker was very clear during the primary that it’s a legitimate issue to be addressed and discussed, so it isn’t a dig on him and more than it is a dig on Rauner personally.
I mean, I’m as big a hypocrite as anyone because I felt like we were in a banana republic when Rauner was running but suddenly was fine with Pritzker taking him on in 18.
So we should have a broad conversation about wealth and democracy and recognize everyone is a little conflicted about it. It isn’t obvious what to do about it in an era of extreme wealth inequality and we should all go easier on people in the civic space.
Comment by Dan Johnson Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:04 pm
This really seems to be a discussion about a solution in search of a problem. We’ve now had two governors who would have been more comfortable sitting around and counting their money (I’m sure that Rauner feels that way), but subscribed to the axiom that “For those to whom much is given, much is expected.” They implemented that belief with not just their time, but their money. And someone is complaining? Agreed with 47th Ward that we should all be saying, “Thank you, Governors.”
Comment by Southside Markie Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:05 pm
” But Pritzker’s practice amplifies the trend ” and that is problem. When the executive office staff and activities become beholden only to JB and his money/influence the residents of of Illinois are out of the loop. Sure stretches the Attorney General’s ideal of ENSURING OPEN AND HONEST GOVERNMENT
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:06 pm
===This sounds like some off the cuff remark by Susan Garrett yesterday that is treated like a white paper. I don’t think it’s about his use of a jet or supplementary salaries or any one particular thing the Governor is doing.===
If you’re saying Ms. Garrett isn’t all that great at her job and taking her seriously is something we should do at our own peril, I’m way ahead of you. I probably won’t take much of what she says seriously at all anymore, and if I did before, yikes, that’s on me.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:06 pm
==It isn’t obvious what to do about it in an era of extreme wealth inequality and we should all go easier on people in the civic space==
According to the Supreme Court, there’s nothing that can be done. There is, apparently, no legal way to prevent someone from using massive wealth to fund campaigns. I don’t like it, but her handwringing about the parts that aren’t even nearly as problematic, without any suggestion about constitutional solutions, is useless. She’s clearly just embarrassed that she made a poorly phrased remark and wants to lean into it with a town hall.
Comment by PJ Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:08 pm
I think Susan Garrett is trying to stir the pot to generate awareness and publicity for her organization. It’s a pretty cheap shot. If the governor wants to spend his own money on travel or staff and not use taxpayer dollars, I’m all for it.
Comment by Shytown Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:13 pm
Senator Garrett was a fantastic elected official. She got things done and she did it with ethics and integrity in place. I wish she was our governor instead of Pritzker.
Comment by Start Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:15 pm
===I wish she was our governor instead of Pritzker.===
Sounds like she does too.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:17 pm
===Senator Garrett was a fantastic elected official. She got things done and she did it with ethics and integrity in place. I wish she was our governor instead of Pritzker.===
… and yet, she really has no clue about the law here, or legislation she actually sponsored, or that others before this current governor followed similar practices.
Thank goodness she’s not the governor, she seems a bit clueless to this gig, let alone running a state.
“Finish”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:19 pm
47th ward…I wish that was the case. I would do everything in my power to make that happen. I personally think Pritzker has a glass jaw. Biss and Kennedy were horrible candidates and Rauner had already checked out. A wealthy female candidate with great experience would give him problems in a primary.
Comment by Start Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:20 pm
George Washington paid his war time staff out of personal funds. In fact most wealthy Founding Fathers gave generously of their personal wealth. Sometimes they were reimbursed by mostly worthless Continental dollars. This giving of personal wealth seems to be the ideal that we strive to emulate, not criticize.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:25 pm
===Sometimes those who have gained the most actually get that they need to step in and give more to make a correction in the system.===
I agree and think that’s what the graduated income tax is meant to address.
Comment by don the legend Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:25 pm
===I wish that was the case. I would do everything in my power to make that happen. I personally think Pritzker has a glass jaw.===
… and yet, Pritzker, his agenda, and the entire session is considered one of the best first sessions of any governor in recent memory.
Says a lot about ya, if you can’t see what was accomplished and this governor’s role. Can’t have a glass jaw running up vote totals when some needed real wrangling at the end was needed and done.
===A wealthy female candidate with great experience would give him problems in a primary.===
Narrator: She wouldn’t.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:25 pm
Could we start this as an ongoing public forum where the effects of private money in other areas affects us? For example… in the media? to state political parties?
After all, twice in a row now Illinois voters have decided “the rich know best.”
Comment by Vote Quimby Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:27 pm
She’s not messaging it very well, but she has a point. The Governor is outsourcing public positions to his own private payroll, just under the auspices of a charitable act to taxpayers.
The position is one of public trust — not one that should be funded by his offshore trust.
The question and ethical dilemmas arise out of loyalty. The people who are paid by the governor’s personal wealth now have immense incentive to keep that revenue stream flowing. Sure, we all want to keep our jobs. But if I’m making just as much “under the table” as I am from the state, my loyalties to the state I am supposed to serve are at least confused, and at worst, compromised.
I know everyone wants to laud J.B.’s accomplishments — and they are many. But this can still be a troubling trend, especially when you consider the long term implications of a system increasingly and exclusively of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
Comment by Da Lobsta Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:30 pm
So everyone wants to tax the rich and have them pay their “fair share” but when the wealthy voluntarily use their resources in areas of public service we have a problem with it? Maybe people would feel better if we called it a tax. Let’s call it the Wealthy Illinois Governor tax. There, feel better?
Comment by Eastside Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:45 pm
Would Garrett rather Pritzker owed his soul to campaign donors who might want favors later? He’s done nothing illegal. She’s trying to make hash out of leftovers.
Comment by Cailleach Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:47 pm
Dan Johnson’s comments best sharpen the focus on what should be a policy discussion that cuts across ideological and party lines. Until these past couple of election cycles, high-net-worth candidates historically failed more than they prevailed in Illinois politics. Since that trend now seems to be reversing, it’s now a more relevant topic.
As someone who has had both personal and professional relationships with those who have deployed their personal wealth in their politics, I know that there are fair questions to pose about transparency and accountability on how decisions are made or outcomes achieved when private resources enter the equation — regardless of whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat.
Lastly, I’d suggest dialing down the excessively gratuitous and frequently inaccurate criticisms that some are slinging Susan Garrett’s way. I’ve had the unique opportunity over the 14 years of her public career to fight alongside Susan during many tough legislative battles to reform government. She was then the real deal and that still holds true today. I give both Susan and our former Senate colleague John Millner tremendous credit for co-founding the new bipartisan Center for Illinois Politics, and I’m thrilled to continue working with them as a CIP board member.
Comment by Jeff Schoenberg Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 2:54 pm
===I’d suggest dialing down the excessively gratuitous and frequently inaccurate criticisms that some are slinging Susan Garrett’s way.===
Yeah, about that…
You can’t claim “I’m all about this and that” and truly be utterly clueless when speaking, especially about statutes, and even things sponsored.
If you truly want me to think for a second she “forgot” the past governor did the same exact thing and her hyperbolic wanderings are to be glossed over, it would be difficult for me then to take just about anything Ms. Garrett wants me to take serious later, as she is now either ill-informed, lacking knowledge of her own career, or terribly hyperbolic for its own sake.
With respect, I’ll keep my criticism exactly as it is, the same as Ms. Garrett chose to speak as a “professional” to the issue with the glaring errors that trivialize her own criticisms.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 3:11 pm
Her idea belongs in some kind of policy wonk symposium at this stage, since Illinoisans voted with their pocketbooks to elect JB, so the average voter doens’t care/isn’t worried about it. Thus a public town hall event is meaningless except to those looking to make their pro or con mark in the discussion.
Comment by revvedup Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 3:13 pm
As a purist/CPA/accountant wonk, it seems reasonable that any elected official should be required to use state resources when conducting state business including state travel, security, etc. If the official(s) wants to reimburse the state by making contributions to the GRF - that’s great. Otherwise, this commingling of private/public money is not appropriate.
I boar mys
Comment by justacitizen Thursday, Jun 27, 19 @ 9:29 pm