Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Supremes keep pension case on fast track
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Meeks wants $729 million education spending increase
Posted in:
* The Tribune reports today that Gov. Bruce Rauner’s announcement that he’d put his assets into a blind trust wasn’t exactly accurate…
Documents made public by Rauner show he executed a power of attorney granting management authority over his investments to Roundtable Investment Partners, a firm in which Rauner is an investor. Roundtable’s CEO donated more than $50,000 to Rauner’s campaign, state records show. […]
He promised that all information about his investments would bypass him and be routed to Roundtable, and he also said Roundtable would be instructed to share with him only the minimum details he needs to accurately complete his state financial disclosure.
Those promises aren’t legally binding, of course.
* However, there’s a good reason why Rauner did it this way, says his spokesman. Illinois’ ethics law…
Lance Trover, a spokesman for Rauner, said the governor used the term “blind trust” to describe the type of safeguards he sought to replicate. Trover said it was not “feasible” for the Republican to establish a traditional blind trust and still comply with Illinois ethics law that requires officeholders to annually list investments doing business in the state.
“This is the strongest possible structure that both established blind trust procedures and allows the Rauners to fully comply with the state’s economic disclosure laws moving forward,” said Trover, who noted that blind trusts can be used to shield a politician’s assets from public view. “Doing this ensures to the people of Illinois that Gov. Rauner will not try to hide his financial assets behind a blind trust.”
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:38 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Supremes keep pension case on fast track
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Meeks wants $729 million education spending increase
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This raised an eyebrow at first, until reading Mr Trover’s comments.
There is not much else Rauner can do to comply with both sides of things at this point, so it sounds like anyone in the ILGA who complains should focus instead on tweaking our laws a bit. Get to work, folks.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:49 am
“However, there’s a good reason why Rauner did it this way, says his spokesman.”
And that good reason is: “It’s what Bruce wanted to do.”
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM (@MisterJayEm) Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:49 am
Rauner is now appointing people to manage the state pension funds, this idea of a blind trust is a joke, gee, too bad nobody reported on this before the election. And yes that was what you clever clever intrepid reporters call ’snark.’ Maybe it would be more accurately called ‘duh snark.’ Or maybe just ‘duh duh.’
Comment by William j Kelly Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:50 am
Once again our own ethics disclosure regulations get in the way of the best possible ethical behavior — in this case a truly blind trust.
We have over-designed our reform efforts, and tied ourselves in bureaucratic knots. Rule compliance is not ethics. Laws are not the answer.
Comment by walker Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:50 am
The guy literally has so much money that it’s impossible to hold him to the same conflict of interest standards as everyone else. This comes one day after they announced that his wife will continue in a position that will also likely create a conflict of interest. Troubling.
Comment by The Captain Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:53 am
Can we put this in the “Asked and Answered” file? I doubt it.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:54 am
Is this the same Rauner who believes a lobbyist buying a state employee a Miller Lite is a conflict of interest and felt the need to ban it by executive order?
Having ownership stake in a company that has millions controlled by a state pension board you appoint though…
Comment by Bull Moose Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 11:57 am
I don’t think Rauner got into government to make money. He made plenty of money off government on the outside.
Still, “blind trust” has a specific meaning and he probably should have thought it through before he started throwing the phrase around.
I wouldn’t want to be the crew at Roundtable moving his money around. Plenty of ways to get in a jackpot.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:00 pm
This can be very easily resolved with a quick visit to the blind trust department, now everybody raise your left hands. http://youtu.be/uViRIiEApFE
Comment by William j Kelly Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:09 pm
We have repeatedly witnessed that being elected governor does not cause a personal transformation that enhances morals, virtues or character traits.
The new governor cannot return to a virginal state of purity in order to satisfy his critic’s fear that his personal wealth rules his very being.
If Mr. Rauner could actually accomplish such a makeover, his critics would still be railing against him, his administration and his policies.
Nothing would satisfy them because they believe that his wealth taints him permanently, that it is an unpardonable capital sin. To these purists, Rauner’s wealth destroys any possibility that his gubernatorial actions, policies or plan could serve any other purpose, but to enrich him further.
They are like a bunch of Puritan Pilgrims judging Hester Prynne and finding her permanently tainted by sin.
It sounds as if the new governor wishes to meet the sincere intentions of the law, and we should recognize that.
We need to temper our fear and let the guy settle into the job a while.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:15 pm
Barely a week on the job and they’ve already adopted the “good enough for government work” mantra.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:22 pm
I still don’t quite understand how the establishment of the blind trust would be in conflict of the requirements of the ethics act, which require that the ownership in excess of $5,000 be declared. By creating a blind trust, the trustees become the legal owners of the assets in the trust, and whatever benefits the Governor would then receive from the trust on an annual basis could be declared as part of a different section on the statement of economic interest.
Comment by Juice Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:25 pm
One way he could go the extra mile and set the standard for ethical behavior is to divest his interest in any entity that does business with the state. That may be challenging but it could be done. Otherwise, oh well.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:38 pm
I guess we could ask for vows of poverty, chastity and obedience too. But we’re coming off 6 years of “that doesn’t work”.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:55 pm
Michelle you’re priceless.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:57 pm
Guy, to my knowledge, no one asked Rauner to do anything. He announced that he was forming a blind trust for his own reasons.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 12:59 pm
Sling, see Mr/Ms Mill’s comment directly above mine. That’s what I was responding to.
You’re welcome.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:10 pm
Walker- your comments are spot on!
Comment by Magpie Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:16 pm
@magpie:
I agree, that Walker is correct.
But Bruce spent $36 a vote and shrieked hysterically about corruption.
Its easy enough for him to do. Get rid of the assets and avoid any possibility of impropriety.
Take a salary like every other Governor did.
But Bruce is arrogant.
Comment by Del Clinkton Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:04 pm
I think Juice has got it right. Trover’s answer is smoke and reporters aren’t lawyers, so they can’t see through it. If these guys believe in a way around a clear constitutional provision regarding diminution of a pension, surely they could have worked around this, if they wanted to. I think they didn’t want to — if you had made a billion dollars on your own, would you want to give complete blind control to someone else?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:31 pm
Del, he’s not like any other Governor. Nor was any before him. “Get rid of all his assets?”
You lost the argument right there. That’s just nuts.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:33 pm
He should be required to list all of his relationships with entities that do business with the state of IL. No different than the annual filing key State employees and legislators must file.
Some would say its bad enough that he refuses to release his tax returns. Now he holds himself to a lower standard when it comes to releasing his conflict of interest statement.
To put it mildly, this is an outrage.
Comment by Tim Snopes Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:47 pm
Can someone explain to me exactly how Rauner, if he was so inclined, (and I don’t think he is) could use his appointment power at the pension funds to benefit his former company?
Keep in mind the prior investments have run their course, with only one at ISBI (which is almost done) still holding assets and generating fees.
I’m all ears.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 3:05 pm
Telling somebody to get rid of all of their assets is just silly.
Yes, he misspoke when he used the term blind trust. Maybe he really thought he could until somebody pointed out the ethics law requirements. I would actually prefer to know where his money is and how those investments cross paths with the State of Illinois.
And, since those investments will be seen you can bet that the microscope will be on high magnification comparing decisions Governor Rauner makes and how those decisions might affect his investments.
I’m not concerned. They guy is a not-quite billionaire. He didn’t run for Governor to pad his portfolio.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 3:13 pm
Mr Governor, will you push for ethics laws that allow for a blind trust for the governor’s office?
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 4:58 pm