Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Budget woes mount, cash shortage causes real pain
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The governor’s Office of Executive Inspector General has gone over the edge. According to the Tribune the OEIG has just issued this decree about the state’s ethics law…
…university students, not just employees, were prohibited from participating in political rallies on campus—an assertion at odds with the University of Illinois’ interpretation of the law.
“Anything that benefits a political campaign is prohibited on state property,” said Gilbert Jimenez, deputy inspector general. The results of any investigations of campus activity would be turned over the university’s board of trustees with recommendations for discipline, including possible dismissal, Jimenez said.
So, that means Republican, Democratic and other student political clubs would likely be banned from meeting on campus, despite decades of precedence. And the clubs’ faculty sponsors would be prohibited from attending or probably even being sponsors. Also, under this interpretation, universities could no longer host candidate debates. If anybody complains, the OEIG would launch an investigation. Wonderful.
* And nobody is getting any direction from Attorney General Lisa Madigan…
The state attorney general’s office said it was unclear how the state law applied to university employees and whether it applied to students.
Great. How about an interpretation, for crying out loud?
* The U of I claims it won’t enforce the law…
Tom Hardy, a University of Illinois spokesman, said Thursday that the university only wanted to inform its employees of the law and had no intention of enforcing it. The university, he said, would take no action against participants in the pro-Obama rally [held yesterday on campus to protest the goofy rules].
The problem here is that the university could selectively enforce the law down the road in order to get rid of particularly problemmatic faculty, staff or students.
Either the General Assembly needs to change the law or the attorney general needs to do her job and give the universities some guidance here.
…Adding… By the OEIG’s insane logic, both of Barack Obama’s rallies at the Old State Capitol were illegal.
Democratic and Republican days at the Illinois State Fair are also therefore illegal, as are the political party tents at the fairgrounds.
If a college student wears a political buton on the U of I’s quad, can s/he be kicked out of school? Could that same person be kicked off the fairgrounds? I’ve seen plenty of private citizens wearing campaign buttons at the Statehouse. Would that be prohibited as well?
One other point. I spoke to a Democratic women’s organization at the governor’s mansion a few years ago (where I was heartily booed for the first and, so far, only time at a speaking engagement). Since members of the group spoke on behalf of specific politicians that evening, would that sort of meeting be against the law now, too?
…More food for thought… Since the constitutional convention is on the ballot this November, and since both sides of that issue have formed and registered their respective official campaign committees with the State Board of Elections and are actively campaigning, it’s also worth wondering if an upcoming debate at UIUC put together by my intern Kevin Fanning would be banned. Here’s Kevin’s comments from below…
I’m hosting a debate on the merits of the Constitutional Convention at the University of Illinois on Oct. 15h, and the Lt. Gov will be participating. Everyone is encouraged to come, especially the Governor and the deputy Inspector General.
* More…
* Column: Pres. White should retract ethics policy
* Students rally against ethics rules
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 10:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Budget woes mount, cash shortage causes real pain
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This State has officially lost its mind. Where would this directive come from? The Governor? That’s the only way I see it.
Illinois trying to become the model for Big Brother?
Yeah, we don’t need a con-con…
can’t wait for Bill on this one…
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:03 am
So some of contributions to the ACLU might finally get spent in Illinois.
Comment by Anonish Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:06 am
The university setting should be a key arena for the exchange of ideas and challenging the status quo, or defending it. I don’t know if Blago is aware of this or behind it, it sounds totally within keeping of his pecurliar brand of idiocy and delusions of “Dictator for Life”.
Comment by You Go Boy Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:07 am
Unconstitutional.
Comment by Crimefighter Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:08 am
I dont think its the gov’s office on this one. There are a few people over at OIG whose egos are out of control. Enough already. The Ethics Act covers employees! Show me in the Act were it says the OIG can recommend that a STUDENT be dismissed from school. Ask any legislator, I dont think this was the legislative intent. Sad.
Comment by fed up Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:09 am
It’s official as a state we have lost our minds.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:11 am
The OEIG is out of control. They are Blago’s personal police that goes after people his administration tells them to. This is out of their jurisdiction.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:12 am
Tell me again why we don’t need a con-con?
Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:20 am
“Anything that benefits a political campaign is prohibited on state property,” said Gilbert Jimenez, deputy inspector general.
Quick somebody sue Obama. He has had two rallies at the Old State Capitol in Springfield - part of the State Department of Historic sites and most definitely state property.
Comment by Leave a light on George Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:27 am
Maybe I shouldn’t say this for fear of giving OEIG ideas, but what’s next?
No one on a state university campus allowed to discuss issues like abortion, gay marriage, Iraq war, con-con, etc. since that could be construed as “political”?
No more on-campus Newman Centers, Campus Crusades for Christ, Jewish or Muslim student organizations since that would be an “endorsement” of religion? Plus they also would likely be involved in “political” activity (for example, pro-life, pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian rallies)
I agree that this sweeping interpretation is designed to allow the OEIG to “get” anyone that Blago, university administration or others want to find an excuse to get rid of.
It pains me to say this as someone who is generally conservative, but I’d rather me or my kid attend Berkeley than U of I if it’s going to be like this.
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:28 am
Does it seem like Blagojevich’s OEIG is more focused on keeping non-politicians from participating in the political process than preventing elected officials (and patronage appointees) from violating the same laws?
Ron Faucheux once made the point to me that the history of campaign finance reform was a history of incumbents passing laws to make it harder for challengers to unseat incumbents.
Blagojevich’s ideas about how to enforce ethics laws seem to have the same effect.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:29 am
If I worked at campus computing services did that make me a state employee under definition and would that then apply to anything I did during non-work hours at school?
Comment by OneMan Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:31 am
This is a classic case of bait and switch. It’s nothing short of an effort to deflect public attention away from Rezko and the potential indictment of the Governor. Typical stunt from the typical suspects.
Comment by DzNts Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:33 am
As a graduate of the U of I masters in political studies program, I am extremely disappointed in this policy. Banning student participation in campus political activities is contradictory to the political science program which encourages exploration of political ideas, concepts, parties, etc.
Comment by Me Too Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:34 am
I commented last time in defense of the employee prohibitions.
This one, not so much.
Student’s academic freedom is paramount to any campus environment.
Two very cynical thoughts (if not outright hyperbole) on this…
One, the filing of a petition for office benefits a political campaign, therefore is not allowed on state property. No one will be allowed to run for office again; All hail King Rod I.
Two, perhaps this means that rallies will no longer be allowed on state property; perhaps even at state parks; perhaps even in support of keeping those state park open…
If only the gov. was as ethical as he wishes others to be.
Comment by withheld Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:34 am
I suspect that OEIG is doing this for one of two reasons. Either its because (1) the Democrats have such an edge that banning any further political action whatsoever will cement their advantage, or (2) the Governor no longer wants to see campus protests against himself.
Either, way OEIG has conducted political planning for the Governor while making decisions in meetings conducted on state property.
Under its own interpretations, OEIG should ban itself.
Comment by Bubs Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:36 am
Well, BandCamp, I’m not going to answer your question as asked but Ill speak directly and without filters to the people of Illinois….about energy…Of which I have very little today… too much Palin Bingo last night.
Comment by Bill Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:42 am
thanks bill. now VM…who I am sure is typing in to his 6th paragraph now…
Comment by BandCamp Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:47 am
I’m telling you it’s an internal long standing air of hubris within OIG. Look, there is still a legal battle going on with them and the local junior colleges over jurisdiction. Empire building at its best. Look at the folks over there and their credentials. Journalists becoming lawyers late in life or young just-out-of-school attorneys. Same group who believe they have the right to look at state tax returns of citizens NOT under investigation.
Comment by fed up Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:50 am
Something else just came to mind. If university students live on campus, their “home” is campus property and they would technically be forbidden from hosting debate-watching parties or stuffing campaign flyer envelopes EVEN IN THEIR SPARE TIME. They would not have the “out” that professors or employees who live off-campus do.
I lived in an apartment complex on the UIS campus for several years. One of my neighbors had a friend who ran for a local office of some kind. Under this interpretation of the law, he would have been forbidden from printing or stuffing campaign flyers for his friend in his OWN HOME! How crazy is that?
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:53 am
Who wants to set up a pool as to how quickly a TRO will be issued by a judge? If you plan to do so, do so fast, since I suspect we might see some action either later today or on Monday.
Comment by fedup dem Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:54 am
This seems to go way to far–especially as applied to students. If we, as a soceity, can’t engage in robust and even raucous public, political debate on a university campus, where can we?
Here’s another hypothetical for you Secret Square. Would this interpretation of our ethics law prevent a discussion of The Communist Manifesto in an economics or philosphy or political science class? See how far something like this can be taken?
The AG really should do the hard part of her job, step up, and put forth an opinion or guidance for the universities.
Comment by Crafty Girl Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:00 pm
Also, this would mean candidates running for LOCALLY based offices (mayor, city council, state rep or senator) in Carbondale, Normal, Macomb, etc. would not be allowed to have debates, forums or rallies at a campus facility.
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:01 pm
Unbelievable. In 30 plus years at a university campus we were the site of numerous events run by student political organizations, community groups and others as educational forums, candidate meetings, and more. University and state public property should be available for events such as the announcements by candidate Obama on the old statehouse grounds. Narrow minds, narrow rulings.
What about freedom of speech and assembly?
Comment by ruclueless Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:12 pm
This does not surprise me. I was called into an office at the UofI and told that I could not send campaign related emails from MY student email address - broke some rule or something because when it came down to it, it wasn’t my email address, it was the schools.
It was an outrage then, and it’s an outrage now.
Comment by Frank Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:13 pm
That’s two consecutive days that Lisa Madigan has utterly failed the people of IL. It’s easy to be on the side of the angels when you’re battling behemoths like reckless mortgage brokers and producers of dangerous consumer goods. How about showing a little backbone, AG?
Comment by The Doc Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:15 pm
Another hypothetical: does this mean campus newspapers can’t run candidate profiles or interviews, even if they include everyone and don’t favor one candidate over another?
Does this mean Illinois Issues and its blog (which are affiliated with UIS) have to stop discussing elections?
If the rule can be construed to ban debates, which attempt to give all candidates an equal hearing and don’t promote one side or another, that would be the case.
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:17 pm
Just as the Nativity question of the day has been debated in courts in great detail, this issue also must have been decided. How can the AG only site State Law, these are civil rights covered under the U.S Constitution. Is October make work for lawyers month?
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:18 pm
I’m hosting a debate on the merits of the Constitutional Convention at the University of Illinois on Oct. 15h, and the Lt. Gov will be participating. Everyone is encouraged to come, especially the Governor and the deputy Inspector General.
Comment by Kevin Fanning Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:28 pm
What’s next? No party caucuses in the State Capitol?
Comment by Indigo Montoya Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:29 pm
Does this mean anyone who enters the Capitol or any historic site or state park (that’s still open, of course) wearing a campaign button or T-shirt will be required to cover it up…kind of like women wearing shorts or sleeveless tops have to, or used to have to (don’t know what the current rule is) cover up before touring St. Peter’s Basilica? Maybe Blago can have some of his OEIG people standing at the entrance to every state facility with duct tape or shawls in case this happens.
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:35 pm
Capt Fax:
Why not ask the OEIG to go enforce the ruling, grab a ssquad of Larry Trent’s most able (tee hee), rush the U., swoop up some violators
AG not needed here.
BTW let’s start guessing how Blagoat will get into fed financial crisis ( like the Terminator sis this a.n.)
Perhaps he can order the state to stop paying ALL bills to conserve cash for emergencies(aka Wyma’s Paulie R. and Lon’s clients) That shgould do it.
Before you laugh remeber when Blagoat wanted to call out the National Guard to get his name into the CHicago street crime story)
Maybe if we are lucky Blagoat is headed to LA to continue his magic.
Comment by 2ConfusedCrew Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:40 pm
It is often the case that voting for or against a bill or signing or vetoing a bill has political implications. Maybe this explains why the Gov works from home; he does not want to violate ethics laws.
Can people think about politics on state property, or is that banned, too?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:45 pm
OMG.. another reason to bust anyone caught reading or posting to Cap Fax at the Capitol Complex, JRTC or any other state facility! There goes your subscription base Rich!
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:51 pm
Obviously guv is behind this thinly veiled attempt to outlaw politics in Illinois and thus put Rich out of business as retribution.
Comment by A Citizen Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:52 pm
Well I guess the Gov ought to call out the national guard to the campuses.
Insanity.
Comment by Greg Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 12:57 pm
I think this would also mean no more college/young dems/repubs.
Comment by Anon Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 1:11 pm
This is a stupid policy and won’t stand up to any court challenge. Its basic constitutional law 101.
It does make me question the thought processes of the OEIG. If they could make such a silly decision in a high-profile case, how many stupid decisions are they making in small cases. I would love to know how many of their recommendations are upheld once they work their way through the civil service and court system.
Comment by Objective Dem Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 1:20 pm
Didn’t the Governor once brag that he didn’t do very well in law school at constituional law? Obviously. Nor, apparently, did his Inspector General. Unconstitutional as can be!
Comment by Ivote Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 1:20 pm
So what if free speech is compromised in the name of ethics? So what if secret investigations are carried out? Who needs a tin foil hat under this regime?
At least the state universities got an increase in their individual budgets for this year. That should help keep the faculty and students quiet enough.
Comment by Captain Flume Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 1:21 pm
Outrageous. Who are these Brownshirts?
How do they reach a position of authority, at a university of all places, with such ignorance or contempt of the 1st Amendment?
I
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 1:21 pm
“Anything that benefits a political campaign is prohibited on state property” …so no grandstanding speeches any more! Got that members of the General Assembly?
Comment by DC Critter Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 1:23 pm
I bet there are a bevy of trial lawyers just drooling over the litigation and billable time that could result from this.
Comment by Captain Flume Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 1:25 pm
Does this mean that if a state legislator walked into the Stratton wearing one of their own campaign buttons, they’d be in violation of the ethics law?
Comment by Trent Green's Clipboard Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 1:27 pm
A sudden epiphany ! Guv has been putting millions of campaign fund cash into Winston and Strawn - not as payments for defense services but as an investment. In turn he takes official actions that generate lawsuits and the resultant billable hours. His return on investment will easily reach a billion the way he’s going.
Comment by A Citizen Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 1:41 pm
“Anything that benefits a political campaign is prohibited on state property,” said Gilbert Jimenez.
I ran for student office while in college. I was part of a slate; part of a “party” that ran against three or four other slates. We had a platform. We spoke before groups of students in an effort to win votes. Students voted. It was a “political campaign” on state property, sanctioned by a state institution.
Comment by SangamoGOP Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 1:46 pm
If the response indicated in the article is what we can expect of Lisa Madigan, how can anyone say she is governor material?
Comment by Fan of the Game Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 2:06 pm
To Tom Hardy:
Ignore it, carry on as usual and sue the state if they try to enforce this ridiculous interpretation.
To Gilbert Jimenez:
It must be hard to find instances of inappropriate and illegal partisan campaign activities when you only look outside of the Blagojevich administration. Try enforcing these laws a little closer to home first, before you ask the rest of Illinois to cease and desist.
Please, clean your own house before you target Illinois universities.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 2:20 pm
“Anything that benefits a political campaign is prohibited on state property,” said Gilbert Jimenez, deputy inspector general.
If they have a rally for Halvorson at ISU and it gets busted, that benefits Ozinga & Wallace, so the bust is illegal as well.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 2:32 pm
I’m a guest speaker on a public university campus next month. If I have a bumper sticker on my car supporting a candidate, am I also in violation of this latest decree as I park in the visitor’s lot?
Ludicrous. But then, this is Illinois…
Comment by Capitol View Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 2:39 pm
For all of these “over-site” committees and other assorted keepers of ethics in this state, how come none of them can do anything sane or correct? Typical.
Comment by Big Mama T Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 2:56 pm
What a load of …..
Comment by Gameplan Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 3:04 pm
I cut my political teeth on this sort of stuff back in High School, and the prohibition is just flat unconstitutional. There are a string of cases as long as my arm dealing with just this type of issue. Here are a few quotes from S.Ct. decisions which still spring to mind:
“Under our system, State-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism.”
“Students and teachers do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”
“First amendment rights are not given only to be so circumscribed that they exist in principal but not in fact.”
See: Tinker v. DesMoines, 393 US 503.
I had been willing to give Blagojevich the benefit of whatever doubt still remained about his sanity; this pushes me over the edge.
Comment by David Starrett Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 3:18 pm
The law is very clear on 1.)state employees engaging in political activity during compensated time and 2.) misappropriating state property and resources to benefit any candidate or party. Both activities are strictly prohibited by the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is within its rights to enforce the law.
The only reasons this policy is controversial is that it involves OBAMA supporters…oh go cry me a river and respect the law!
Comment by Black Ivy Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 3:30 pm
If students, faculty and staff cannot attend political rallies held on campus, who is going to HOLD a political rally on any college campus?
Comment by Deep South Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 3:31 pm
LOL. As always, mention Obama’s name and Black Ivy is on the other side.
That’s some open mind you got there.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 3:33 pm
It’s got nothing to do with Obama. You should be able wear buttons in support of Chairman Mao (even if you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow).
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 3:43 pm
Shakespeare was right about lawyers. Sheesh.
Comment by Inquisitor Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 4:19 pm
==now VM…who I am sure is typing in to his 6th paragraph now…==
That should be “whom I am sure…”
I don’t need six paragraphs to see how a cornered Blagojevich has decided to mock the ethics laws by going all Mike Nifong on us and enforcing deliberate misinterpretation as punishment.
Blagojevich is angry over the trap he has ensnared himself in. Now he wants others to feel the anger he feels.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 4:31 pm
Three things.
One, I don’t see this as “Blago’s OEIG” If he was to stop them from doing something like this, there would be people all over him asserting that he was interfering with the supposedly independent inspector general. He set’s it up, makes his appointments, that’s it.
More important, someone at the OEIG needs to take their medicine, settle down, feel around them for some shard of reality, and vow to make this all better on Monday.
Third, and most important, folks, this is what you get when you try to legislate ethics…counting away on those angels on the head of a pin, splitting those hairs just so. Try our best to elect ethical people, don’t vote to re-elect them if you don’t like how they play in office, and let the US Attorney prosecute them if he thinks they break the law.
Or, run for office yourself and do a better job.
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 5:08 pm
The OEIG is known as the Secret Police for a good reason. What other governor in Illinois history has set up his own private police force? Or needed to?
Comment by DuPage Dave Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 5:31 pm
I am absoultely speechless. This action is as stupid as it gets.
Blagojevich must be impeached and removed from office.
Comment by some former legislative intern Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 5:36 pm
lol, word.
most of these kids around here didn’t get it.
For all you Obamaphiles and lawsuit advocates: Go to www.uillinois.edu/trustees and review POA’s fine selections to the U of I Board of Trustees.
There are four trial lawyers right there (and one other trustee who needs a lawyer, if AA’s sources are good) to get the ball rolling and stop this abuse of the students, especially the Democrats.
For once 2Confused is right; we don’t need the AG. No girls in the office today, 2Confused? Your post is so much clearer.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 5:39 pm
Shoot, I had a Clinton-Gore sign taped to my dorm room wall back in the day… Would that be illegal now?
O.V.E.R.K.I.L.L.
No other way to put it.
Comment by Rob_N Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 5:42 pm
The state attorney general’s office said it was unclear how the state law applied to university employees and whether it applied to students.
Great. How about an interpretation, for crying out loud?
Her office behaves as if it’s effectively frozen in time until about 2010.
Comment by Punditry Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 5:58 pm
““Anything that benefits a political campaign is prohibited on state property,” said Gilbert Jimenez.
I ran for student office while in college. I was part of a slate; part of a “party” that ran against three or four other slates. We had a platform. We spoke before groups of students in an effort to win votes. Students voted. It was a “political campaign” on state property, sanctioned by a state institution.”
Yup no more ISG. No CRs, CDs).
I have a sticker on my car and I have parked and driven on the U of I campus and they won’t stop you.
What’s really funny is that I wonder if it was a McCain rally, would it be different? Would the university have stopped it?
Would be interesting to find out.
Comment by Central IL Stater Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 6:42 pm