20 Comments - Anonymous - Friday, Mar 11, 05 @ 11:08 pm: IL ain’t ready for reform. - Anonymous - Saturday, Mar 12, 05 @ 1:33 am: I have great difficulty choosing between campaign finance reform and pension reform but I’ll go with campaign finance reform because the corruption is so pervasive and affects the quality of state and local government to such an extent, plus it seems both bipartisan and neverending. I am not just referring to state contractors and other big donors. In state and local government, civil service jobs are also in play, probably in violation of Rutan and other decrees intended to curb government patronage.Big donors get state (and local)jobs–or their relatives and friends do. So do campaign workers. This has been particularly blatant under Blagojevich. I do understand that people need money to run for office. I also understand that it is less exhausting to get money from a few big donors than to have to go to chicken dinners every night for years. Perhaps all campaigning should be exclusively publicly funded. Or, I’m sure there are other ideas out there. So, again, campaign finance reform - Anonymous - Saturday, Mar 12, 05 @ 6:34 am: Blind Donations! Here’s how to handle political contributions: 1. Every candidate gets an account. 2. Donations to the candidate are deposited in that account. 3. The account is maintained by a third party (think big name accounting firm, who gets the job on a competitive bid basis) 4. The account manager does not reveal who,how much, or when funds were deposited in that account. Only how much is in it. If political donations had to be legally anonymous, they would dry up. No bucks, no kickbacks. I’ll hold my breath, I am sure Blago will have this implemented by the summer. - Anonymous - Sunday, Mar 13, 05 @ 12:01 am: What an excellent idea. And if this were to be the governor’s plan, it would indeed “rock” everyone’s world. However, I hope no one is holding their breath waiting for this to happen - I suspect we’d be attending funerals long before anything rocked. - Anonymous - Sunday, Mar 13, 05 @ 12:06 am: What an excellent idea. People/corporations donating to a campaign just because they believe in the candidate and not in the anticipation of any kind of payback. If this were to be the governor’s plan, it would indeed “rock” everyone’s world. However, I hope tou’re not really holding your breath waiting for this to happen - I suspect we’d be attending a funeral long before anything rocked. Patronage and campaign contributions have long been the bedrock of state government in Illinois and contrary to the battle cry, it is still business as usual. - Anonymous - Sunday, Mar 13, 05 @ 3:01 am: bag-o-cash-ovich give his money back. HAHA - Ralph - Sunday, Mar 13, 05 @ 1:45 pm: Blind donations? What a stupid idea…How would they award state contracts? - Carl Nyberg - Sunday, Mar 13, 05 @ 5:20 pm: I want multi-party democracy. I would favor amending the Illinois Constitution to say something like: “The state will not discriminate against candidates based on party affiliation or lack thereof. No laws that restrict the number of parties, directly or indirectly, shall be enforced. Portions of the Constitution that restrict the number of parties shall be repealed.” I proposed the idea earlier at RandomActOfKindness. - Anonymous - Sunday, Mar 13, 05 @ 7:15 pm: > What a stupid idea…How would they award state contracts? Highest kickback bidder, of course. - Anonymous - Sunday, Mar 13, 05 @ 7:23 pm: > I want multi-party democracy. Ruling by opposition is grueling enough. If the ruling class in Illinois had to rule by coalition, we’d all starve to death. - Anonymous - Sunday, Mar 13, 05 @ 8:02 pm: I love this site. Liberals who think they know something about politics. Multi-party democracy, campaign finance reform, Lisa Madigan and the governor walking hand and hand. You people are pathetic. Could someone sprinkle a little reality dust around here? - Rich Miller - Sunday, Mar 13, 05 @ 8:55 pm: Perhaps if you weren’t so intent on being so negative, you could “spread some reality dust” around here. I’m not holding my breath, however. - Anonymous - Sunday, Mar 13, 05 @ 9:32 pm: Blind campaign accounts? What’s the downside? The major contributors are likely to tip off the candidate’s campaign to the amounts they contributed anyway, whether it shows up as a line item or it’s hidden from everyone’s view. Then the public REALLY won’t know who’s behind whom, and it would make it way harder for the press to find out. Then when the favors are passed out, nobody will know what the quid pro quo’s were, unless “somebody” from the IG’s or AG’s office determines there is cause for an investigation. With contributions hidden from public view, there would be less pressure on them to do that. I think the public and the press would rather have full & complete campaign finance disclosure as the lesser of 2 evils. - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 14, 05 @ 12:39 am: Elimination of Township government. - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 14, 05 @ 12:49 am: I really like the blind donation idea, but what’s to prevent big donors and contract bidders from showing the guv their cancelled check and going on from there. I really think the answer is public funding only of political campaigns. I think many citizens really want to fix this. I don’t agree that a reality fix is needed. - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 14, 05 @ 8:33 am: At the Federal Level you see the Republicans wanting no limits on donations just timely disclosure but in this state where the Republicans are still trying to pick themselves up off the crap house floor they want to limit donations. Now that is democracy. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Mar 14, 05 @ 9:27 am: What’s crazy about multi-party democracy? Outside countries that were part of the British empire and totalitarian states, it’s the way the whole world elects governments, right? Illinois is a pretty diverse state. I’d like a more diverse legislature. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Mar 14, 05 @ 9:28 am: BTW, how would “blind” campaign contributions really be blind? Wouldn’t the donors get receipts that they could show to the pol? What would stop a campaign from using “checkers” that physically accompanied the donors while they made their “blind” contributions? - Fly-on-the-wall - Monday, Mar 14, 05 @ 12:09 pm: Before the “reality dust” arrives and spoils the dreaming, here’s my #1: End gerrymandering. No more letting the politicians pick their own constituents. Now that’s some primo 1st class dreaming!! - DownLeft - Monday, Mar 14, 05 @ 5:27 pm: Free or reduced cost political advertising on publicly owned airwaves. The reform that would probably do the most good is the one the corporate media never seems to discuss. The biggest cost of most campaigns is radio and television advertising. If you make that free or very cheap it would allow people to be serious contenders for office without owing their election to corporate donors and party bosses. A reasonably good candidate would be able to raise enough money on their own if they didn’t have to raise hundreds of thousands for advertising. It would make elected officials more independent. Limits on contributions merely force a candidate to spend all their time raising money or be completely dependent on a party organization or corporate special interest. This reform would open up the process without taxpayer subsidy of political campaigns. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.