Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quinn’s populist schtick exposed
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Patterson makes an excellent point…
One day last May, the 37 Democrats in the Illinois Senate went behind doors only to emerge and, on the strength of their votes alone, pass an income and sales tax increase to help balance the state budget.
At the same time, the Senate Republicans were meeting privately to plot their opposition to the tax plan. In the end, the increase never passed in the state House.
Yet there was nary a complaint from the media or good government groups that monitor the Capitol over the Democrats’ meeting.
One summer when Rod Blagojevich was still governor, he met collectively with the vast majority of the Illinois House behind closed doors at the executive mansion to discuss the budget. Not a peep was heard from the reform groups or the editorial pages.
But when the Senate decided to hold a “joint caucus” last week to hear from an NCSL representative, all heck broke loose…
Why such diverse reactions? Why is it OK for the Democrats, who have enough votes to control the Senate agenda, to privately discuss strategy on actual issues, but then seemingly a sin against the constitution to include the political minority Republicans who, on most days, are powerless to do anything but object in the Senate?
“That’s actually a really good question,” said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a group all too familiar with the ways of the Capitol.
“They always have closed partisan caucuses. The difference was this was the Senate as a whole. This was the entire body. There is no such thing as a joint Senate caucus. There is simply a Democratic caucus or a Republican caucus or the Senate.”
OK, I agree, but party caucus meetings, particularly in the Senate, often involve actual roll calls. The “real” questions are asked in caucus meetings and that’s almost always where the “real” debates take place - in both chambers.
I developed a niche for myself back in the 1990s by writing about the goings-on in the House Democratic caucus. When the HGOPs took over, I wrote about their meetings as well. My reporting on the Senate GOP caucus meetings were so detailed and inflamed tempers so much that members were told they’d be expelled if they leaked any more information to me - which, of course, was my headline the next day.
I still write about caucus and leaders meetings. It’s the only way to shine any real light on this process, which is almost entirely conducted in secret.
The only big difference between now and then is that Speaker Madigan rarely ever divulges information in caucus now. Back in the day, I had a couple of his members taking detailed notes in every meeting. So, he eventually stopped sharing information.
…Adding… After months of angrily and loudly and insistently pushing for a state reform bill that capped campaign contributions (sometimes noting parenthetically that it actually opposes contribution caps), the Tribune editorial board’s latest “reform” screed more than suggests that banning federal campaign contributions from foreign corporations would be unfair…
Justice Anthony Kennedy said explicitly in the court’s opinion that the government “may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements.”
Where the [federal] bill faces more uncertain prospects is in banning certain corporations from engaging in political speech at all. Foreign companies, government contractors and banks getting federal bailout money would all be barred.
The court justified its invalidation of the corporate ban on the ground that it deprived voters of information and interfered with the “marketplace of ideas.” The same problems exist when only some corporations are restricted. If the information is potentially helpful to voters in assessing candidates, should it matter whether it comes from a domestic or foreign source?
* Related…
* Statehouse Insider: ‘Transparency,’ Illinois-style
* Conduct state business in public
* Illinois Senate should meet openly
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 22, 10 @ 11:12 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quinn’s populist schtick exposed
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Where is the out cry from Lisa Madigan?
Comment by confused Monday, Feb 22, 10 @ 11:20 am
Sure, plenty of heavy lifting gets done behind closed doors in caucus. Even more reason to keep the full Senate or House from meeting together in secret.
I eventually determined that last week’s stunt was a test run to see what the reaction would be. If there wasn’t a squack, they would do it more often.
I’m still looking for a conference committee schedule.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 22, 10 @ 11:20 am
If the GA is truly interested in ethics and transparency then anytime a majority of a quorum gets together it should be an open meeting. If they are doing State business and are being paid taxpayer dollars why wouldn’t they be willing to reveal what they are discussing? I understand the political reasons, but realistically what good do these closed meetings do for the State? Nothing that I can see.
Comment by Irish Monday, Feb 22, 10 @ 11:47 am
What?
You mean people are complaining now, when they weren’t then?
Gee - what happened?
You don’t think that Blagojevich’s impeachment and removal from office could’a made folks just a wee bit angry with their government, do ya?
I mean, it’s not like we’re not in a freakin’ fiscal hole and facing bankrupsy, right?
MAN! Voters are sooooo touchy now a days!
What gives? DUH!
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Feb 22, 10 @ 12:00 pm
Ummm, Vanilla Man, Blago was long gone by last May.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Feb 22, 10 @ 12:04 pm
Times have changed.
Voters are not happy.
They’re gonna be a little critical over stuff they didn’t used to be critical over before.
That’s life. Reality. You don’t often find that kind of important input under the Dome, I guess.
Why are some people expecting voters to behave as though nothing has happened since they were last polled?
How often are we going to have to have supposedly intelligent people point out that we are not consistent with their flawed analysis of how they think we’re supposed to behave?
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Feb 22, 10 @ 12:10 pm
Gee, could it be that anything that is said or done anywhere is filmed and will show up is a campaign commercial or on the internet before you can say “URL”. Just ask Michael Phelps or Scotty Lago. Yes, we need sunshine, but there also needs to be deliberation.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Monday, Feb 22, 10 @ 5:16 pm