Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: And the hits keep coming…
Next Post: This just in… House comes back Monday, Senate on Wednesday
Posted in:
* Local governments, colleges and universities have lobbied forever. Most of them used to just lobby through their associations, like the Illinois Municipal League or the Illinois Community College Trustees Association, or whatever.
But over the past few decades, government lobbying has picked up and it’s now at least a $6.4 million a year business. That ain’t much in the overall scheme of things, but it is significant and, to some, newsworthy…
The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a good government group that produced a report tallying the money spent on lobbying efforts, believes the public is ill-informed about the relationship between government entities and lobbying firms.
“There’s a void in what we know about the State Capitol, and we should call on legislators to fill that void, to make this information public,” said David Morrison, associate director of the advocacy group.
Although the biggest spender in the study was the Chicago Transit Authority at $385,000 on six lobbying firms, some of the largest spenders came from the smallest areas.
Three Chicago suburbs managed to outspend the city of 3 million residents. The village of Bellwood, population 20,500, sent more than $138,000 to four separate lobbying firms; Crestwood spent more than 10 times its 11,000-person population; and Countryside’s 5,000 residents paid lobbyists $90,000.
* There are a lot of reasons a local government, school, university, etc. would hire a particular Statehouse lobbyist. They may want something that the Municipal League, for instance, can’t or won’t handle. A private industry example would be WalMart, which belongs to the Retail Merchants Association and other statewide lobbying groups but still has its own contract lobsters. Sometimes, members of those groups want something that is not in the best interest of other members, so the associations won’t get involved. Those well-connected, experienced contract lobbyists can do things that few others can…
But monitoring Springfield has grown increasingly difficult, and many officials believe it’s best to have a professional watching out for the local governments’ best interests, Tinley Park Mayor Ed Zabrocki said. Tinley Park spent $6,000 on an outside lobbyist, but Zabrocki, a former state representative, noted that he and other village officials do some lobbying as well. […]
“Things have gotten so complicated down in Springfield that we need someone down there full time,” Zabrocki said
* The ways lobbyists are chosen are almost as varied. Some choose individual lobbyists for at least partly political reasons. The mayor or college president may have a previous or even current campaign relationship with a lobster, for example. One of SIU’s lobbyists worked on Glenn Poshard’s 1998 campaign. Aurora’s lobbyist was also a mayoral campaign honcho.
Some lobbyists are picked because they have special connections. Former Blagojevich insider John Wyma surely wasn’t hired by the DuPage County Board of Health for his mastery of their issues. Some former legislators now represent towns or counties in their old districts. Some lobbyists have expertise at obtaining grants…
Chicago Heights School District 170 Supt. Tom Amadio said he’s satisfied with the results of the $22,500 his district spent on outside lobbying. Having someone based in Springfield is useful when seeking funding for programs or projects, Amadio said.
And projects…
Brian Oaks, general manager of the center, said the PCCC pays into the Civic Center Coalition, which hires a lobbyist to keep track of legislation pertinent to 11 civic centers and arenas around the state.
Most notably, Oaks said, Zack Stamp Ltd. helped secure $25 million in appropriations for the center via the state’s capital construction plan that was approved last year.
* Some may be getting hosed, but the government entities truly believe it works…
The Chicago Transit Authority racked up the highest tab at $385,345 among transit agencies and all 119 government bodies surveyed for lobbyist expenses. Metra spent $264,504, the Regional Transportation Authority, $171,635; and suburban bus service PACE, $132,000.
RTA Chairman Jim Reilly said his agency is spending less than in prior years but is still working on far-reaching legislative issues, including seeking state money for public works projects and securing overdue state payments.
Metra spokeswoman Judy Pardonnet said the contract lobbyists are the agency’s “eyes and ears” in Springfield, working with lawmakers, testifying on legislation and monitoring proposals that might have a financial impact.
CTA spokeswoman Noelle Gaffney said that unlike other government bodies, the transit agency does not have taxing authority and relies primarily on fares and public funding. The CTA “needs to be in the mix” in Springfield and needs skilled representation to work on the agency’s behalf, particularly in the tight financial times, Gaffney said.
* And while this may look odd or even wasteful to some, even the Campaign for Political Reform can see why the lobsters are hired…
Cynthia Canary, director of the Chicago-based watchdog group, noted that the concept of one unit of government hiring private lobbyists to communicate with another unit of government often looks “absolutely crazy” to taxpayers. “In essence, we’re spending money to talk to ourselves,” she said.
But she added that, with the state’s budget crisis, local units of government are competing for every state dollar they can get. “While I think it is crazy, I understand it” in that context, she said.
The object of releasing this report is to demand that the state require everyone who hires a lobbyist to disclose how much they’re spending. You can read the ICPR’s full report by clicking here.
Canary’s ICPR belongs to a few organizations that lobby the General Assembly, has in-house people who do lobbying, but the group has also retained contract lobsters (Mike Kreloff and James Bray this year).
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 10:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: And the hits keep coming…
Next Post: This just in… House comes back Monday, Senate on Wednesday
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Releasing a report to gin up support for some legislation…hmmm…seems as though the ICRP could be a lobby itself. I wonder how much they spend on lobbyists?
That said, it does seem silly for governments to hire lobbyists, but do taxpayers really want government officials spending a bunch of time down in Springfield instead of working on problems at home? You may be able to make a case that CTA should just hire an in-house lobbyist, it might save some money, but if a Village spends $10k on a lobbyist, its probably cheaper than sending a senior Village employee down to Springfield to lobby and take time away from that employee’s actual day-to-day job.
Comment by jerry 101 Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 10:54 am
I thought Rod Blagojevich cleaned-up Illinois government ? !
Comment by Northside Bunker Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 10:59 am
Nice piece, Rich. There’s a common misunderstanding that “lobbyist” is a dirty word. I understand why it happens, but they do serve a purpose and don’t sound so slimy when called by a different name. I recently spoke to a college class and asked them to name some groups that had lobbyists:
“the NRA”
“big oil”
“cigarette companies”
When I asked them to replace the word “lobbyist” with “government relations liaison” or “advocate,” the students offered, “the Cancer Society,” “AARP,” and “this school.”
Comment by Anonymiss Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:05 am
The problem with reports like this is they are skewed against those who use contract lobbyist compared to those that use just in-house people. If you have people on your payroll, the muni’s and agencies don’t have to disclose who those people are and it is hard to allocate what that cost is.
Comment by Been There Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:06 am
this became an issue in dc 5 years ago with abramoff, it is an indictment of the legislators that the towns don’t think they can get enough from them.
they should be disclosed along with the return on investment
Comment by shore Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:10 am
So we are using public dollars from one budget to lobby for public dollars from another budget?
Regardless of which budget the dollars come from it is from the same source - the same taxpayer!
No wonder things are so messed up.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:10 am
In my experience in Proviso Township the lobbyists got hired b/c the political class wanted to move public money to the pockets of their friends and allies.
The lobbyists did not produce results (state grants or other) that even covered the cost of hiring the lobbyists.
Maybe hiring lobbyists is sometimes appropriate, but it can be a scam.
If lobbyists are going to be hired with taxpayer money it should be required to explain on the taxing body’s website what the lobbyist is attempting to accomplish. And the tax body should be required to update what the lobbyist has accomplished once per month.
And the information should remain online for at least six years.
When someone does a web search on “Jane Q. Lobbyist” is should be publicly known she accomplished little to nothing for past clients.
The lobbyists want to get the easy money from taxpayers with the low levels of accountability. That ain’t right.
If you work for the gov’t in a cushy job, you gotta produce results.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:20 am
I am actual partial to CN;s idea. I do agree that the operation of the general assembly requires everyone, including governemnts, to have a lobbyist to watch what is going on and to be prepared to stop bad legislation along with supporting good bills.
But I think the actual work being performed needs identified clearly.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:34 am
Wouldn’t these taxing bodies do better spending their funds providing the services that they are supposed to provide?
Comment by Sueann Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:35 am
I think in many cases it’s just another way to put friends and supporters on a public payroll.
Also need to look at how much the lobbyist or the lobbying firm kicks back in campaign contributions to the public officials who awarded the lobbying contract. Bascially public money gets washed and back into the political pipeline.
Comment by just sayin' Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:46 am
Sueann, if they were spending more money on lobsters than they were getting back from the state, then you’d be right. Most, however, appear to think it’s a good investment.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:46 am
Illinois requiring lobbyist compensation disclosure? Not likely. And given how successful ICPR’s organizational friends were with redistricting and campaign finance reform they may want to look at better contract lobbyists.
Comment by wndy Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:49 am
There’s a whole additional side to this debate, which is that many units of local governments are spending for lobbying services just to have a voice in decisions being made which can adversely affect their current operations. It’s not always about just extracting more money from the State.
For example, there’s been many a piece of legislation proposed and implemented into law which would have been far less costly (and much less complex) for the locals to make work if only the connections and lines of communications between the legislators and “the workers” had been in place.
Comment by Judgment Day Is On The Way Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:50 am
A lot of what local government lobbies for is not in the best interest of their constiuents. For example, many local governments used taxpayer dollars to lobby against the Freedom of Information Act reforms; the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District used lobbyists to allow the MWRD Commissioners to vote themselved pay raises rather than leaving their salaries up to the state legislature; many other governments are using taxpayer dollars to increase their own powers and limit the powers of their constiuents. If taxpayers only knew…
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:54 am
Sueann, what services they provide and money for them comes from legislation those lobbyists are invovled with. So the legislature passes a bill requiring municipalities to provide free medical treatment to all residents under the age of 18, with no state funding.
The municipalty is just spending its money providing services so this bill passes unopposed by the local buisness groups happy to push this expense onto governemnt. So now the services they are providing increase massively in cost, no revenue, and they unciontaly bcome unable to provide those other services you wished them to focus on…. perhaps keeping an eye on what the general assembly is doing is a good idea.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:59 am
“…it is an indictment of the legislators that the towns don’t think they can get enough from them….”
I know this is a bit ideological, but I think part of the problem is the expectation that the state give any significant amount of money to local municipalities. Rather than keep the money in the community in the first place, it gets kicked down to Springfield where counties and towns then have to try to “win” back their own cash. The problem is, for every dollar a legislator “brings back to the district” they may have to cut deals with 10 other legislators to sign onto it for some multiple dollar amount. Maybe a net loss of $2 to the district for every $1 won, but since the cost is diffuse and comes later down the road, nobody notices until it’s too late.
It also concentrates the amount of power Springfield (and by extension Chicago) has over the rest of the state.
I’m not saying that lobbyists don’t have their place. Like any agent or conduit, they’re amoral. It all depends on the motivations and goals of the clients. It just seems to me that a good chunk of “advocacy” is aimed at looting the taxpayers, and the legislators & lobbyists are just the middlemen that get a cut of the action.
Comment by John Galt Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 11:59 am
===it is an indictment of the legislators that the towns don’t think they can get enough from them===
Only if you are foolish enough to believe that legislators must always, without fail agree with everything proposed by every single one of their mayors, county boards, library districts, school boards and, and, and.
Don’t be foolish.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 12:03 pm
Lobbyists also pass along some of the public money they’re paid to the elected officials they lobby in the form of campaign contributions (more washing of taxpayer money into the political pipeline). Any success a lobbyist has in Springfield for a public sector client likely owes more to that fact than anything else.
Comment by just sayin' Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 12:11 pm
Springfield and many other cities are facing huge finaial crisis becuase of the overly lucrative pole and fire pensions. Those were passed by the legislature but require local funding.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 12:20 pm
Just Saying
you are onto something. That’s the real story that is being missed. Perhaps ICPR 2010 study should research how much these lobbsters give to these elected officials and board members to get the lobbying contract.
where is the play to play at the municipal & local government level?
Comment by whats the message Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 1:02 pm
I think for the most part this is just more silly posturing by the busybodies. So should private contractors (let’s say road builders) have to open up their books and tax returns because a lot of the money they get is tax dollars? There is no end to these threads when you start to unravel them, and so far I’m not real impressed with the results of the “reforms” the busybodies have enacted. Of course, they will say that’s because only inadequate and imperfect reforms have been passed.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 1:12 pm
Disclosure by government entities with regard to lobbyist expenditures is completely appropriate, as those are tax dollars. However, private entities should not have to disclose how much they make…this information is proprietary. Lobbyists have to disclose their clients and affiliates, as well as political expenditures. Outside of PAC $, they should not have to disclose their revenues.
Comment by unspun Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 2:05 pm
If we don’t call them lobbyists, they don’t end up being political punching bags. If you know that your school ensures close ties within Illinois government by having a specialist personally shepherd school needs through state bureaucracy, you’d probably think it is a great idea and worth paying for.
The bigger government gets, the more inefficient and redundant it becomes, justifying government specialists. I think most folks understand that if explained properly.
Just don’t call them lobbyists, my man - Ross Perot - permanently labeled them back in ‘92 and even Blagojevich was still whipping that old dead horse ten years later. But that was because Blagojevich is a boob, but that’s another story…
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 2:10 pm
=== So should private contractors (let’s say road builders) have to open up their books and tax returns because a lot of the money they get is tax dollars? ===
Those dollars are publicly disclosed by the government body that pays them.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 2:33 pm
Among my current clients is a quasi-governmental organization providing State & locally funded rent subsidies to clients. I was hired by them initially to get the State’s portion of this program enacted with a dedicated revenue stream and with as much enduring bipartisan support as possible. Not an easy task at all; others had failed before me. Since that was accomplished, most of my time in their behalf has been spent reviewing every bill introduced which might conceivably effect my client, their providers or those they rent to, and making sure they are well-informed about these measures in time to impact them. Much of the time this has meant “rear-guard” actions to prevent harmful things (like special fund “sweeps”) but I sometimes recommend initiatives as well. This client pays me pretty well for my detailed knowledge of the process and its pressure-points, and the goodwill I’ve developed on both sides of the aisle. I never “wine/dine” legislators, and only make campaign contributions of any significance to personal friends.
Steve knows well that I spent a good amount of career as what he would describe as a “busybody.” I hope he would agree that I was pretty reasonable in my approach to reform measures. I think part of what to his frustration over the never-ending stream for reform proposals is the “whack-a-mole” character of reform in this state. –Though I have to admit that many reform groups seem to feel pressure to justify their continued existence (and grant funding) by developing and enactment of yet another set of proposals.
Comment by David Starrett Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 3:07 pm
No complaints about David Starrett in the whole time I’ve known him
JO–but since dollars are fungible we really don’t know what they did with that money, do we? And are they overcharging us?
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 4:22 pm
In my limited exposeure to the legislature, I’ve learned that despite a community’s or organization’s best efforts, there’s no replacemnt for having full-time representation in Springfield. Legislative committees don’t adhere to the same open meeting rules as the rest of us. Committee meetings are called and cancelled with little notice. Bills are called unexpectedly, and don’t get me started on “floor amendments”.
Comment by 3 beers to springfield Thursday, May 20, 10 @ 4:53 pm
You’d think the local governments’ state reps. and senators could do most of the heavy lifting for them in Springfield. That’s their job, and outside of leadership, most have a lot of time on their hands during sessions.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 21, 10 @ 8:23 am
Word to the wise: When reading a newstory about something happening “increasingly” often, just tune out. It’s not a real story. Seriously.
Comment by Big Ears Friday, May 21, 10 @ 10:18 am