“Bankers bank on Topinka”
Wednesday, Feb 22, 2006 - Posted by Rich Miller
This always happens. Candidate proposes ethics reforms, and the media goes on the hypocrisy watch.
If Judy Baar Topinka’s ethics reform proposal was already law, the state treasurer and front-runner in the Republican race for governor might find her campaign significantly shorter on cash.
A Tribune analysis of her three terms in the treasurer’s office shows Topinka has received at least $500,000 from banks, their political action committees and individuals listing banks as their employer. Some of the donations came from banks that have had millions of dollars in contracts with her office.
Topinka also received donations from banks that do not have contracts but benefit when state deposits are sent to their institutions from the multibillion-dollar portfolio she has managed since being elected treasurer in 1994.
The benefits to Topinka’s campaign fund have come even as she has accused Gov. Rod Blagojevich of running a “pay to play” administration that has yielded him a steady stream of campaign contributions.
Fair hit? Yep. Will we see more of this? Bet on it.
UPDATE: Ron Gidwitz press release:
Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Ron Gidwitz will hold a press conference today, Wednesday, Feb. 22nd at 11 a.m. at his campaign headquarters at 57 W. Grand, Third Floor, to talk about pay to play politics and the sweetheart deals that contradict Judy Baar Topinka’s new message of reform.
UPDATE 2: Dave from the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform makes an addmittedly good point in comments.
I’m not so sure this is a fair hit. I don’t see any conflict between saying “I will play by the rulesâ€, and “I think the rules ought to be changed.†[…]
This kind of “gotcha†journalism is part of why reform doesn’t take hold; it fuels cynicism without advancing dialogue and instead plays into the hands of those politicians who are oppose reforms they see as an encroachment on their power. I don’t fault Rod Blagojevich for calling for contribution limits while not limiting his current contributors, and I don’t fault Topinka for calling for change while playing under the current rules, either.
- DOWNSTATE - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 8:10 am:
I think the first sentence says it all” was already law”.No one in their right mind is going to go up against Blago with his millions gathered in the same way without doing it yourself.The only difference is I have not heard of any of hers being investigated by the feds.Now wait before you anti-Judy and Blago maniacs get on here about rumors if it is true then print it.
- Cassandra - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 8:22 am:
I suspect what both Blago and JBT would say in the general is that the current system permits these kinds of donations. In fact, I think Blago has already said it.
What’s needed is for one or both to say that they would make legislation preventing such
donations one of their two or three top priorities.
Even though I think such donations lead to corruption, it doesn’t make sense for one candidate to throw him/herself
onto the pyre, so to speak, in the middle of an election, refuse legal donations, and substantially increase their risk of losing.
What really matters is what the winning candidate does and we have to make our best guess. My bets are with JBT. Chicago Machine Dems like Blago are just not credible in the no corruption pledge department.
- Anon - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 8:33 am:
I really want to see the ethics proposal JBT is talking about. I’ve seen the talking points, but is there actual language drafted?
- David @ ilcampaign - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:01 am:
Hey Rich-
I’m not so sure this is a fair hit. I don’t see any conflict between saying “I will play by the rules”, and “I think the rules ought to be changed.” Some in the media, and elsewhere, blame Glen Poshard’s loss on his decision to limit contributions to his campaign in order to look consistent with his suggestion that all contributions ought to be limited. They also point out that other supporters of his took far larger contributions than he did, and that he “accepted” in-kinds from them. This kind of “gotcha” journalism is part of why reform doesn’t take hold; it fuels cynicism without advancing dialogue and instead plays into the hands of those politicians who are oppose reforms they see as an encroachment on their power. I don’t fault Rod Blagojevich for calling for contribution limits while not limiting his current contributors, and I don’t fault Topinka for calling for change while playing under the current rules, either.
- Lovie's Leather - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:05 am:
This is the kind of thing that will escape people in the primary. From day 1 of Judy announcing, there has never been any question who people were gonna vote for. JBT supporters are stuck on JBT and she will win the primary. It is a very scary situation, unfortunately. She wins the primary and then goes on to the general election where she gets ripped apart. And, I know that Judy is a tough politician, but she could get it handed to her. I really don’t like Blago and really want to see him go. But I don’t know if JBT can withstand everything that is about to be thrown at her. It has officially hit the fan…
- Beowulf - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:28 am:
I sure hope Andy McKenna reads the Chicago Tribune. This punch didn’t even come at Judy from one of the GOP contenders in the ring with her but rather from a fight fan sitting in the second row who came to watch the fight.
If this article in the Tribune doesn’t show Andy McKenna what a terrible error in judgement that he and Kjellander have made, what does? Judy’s Ethics Reform proposal looks ludicrous after reading this article. It just exemplifies what is about to happen to Judy after the March 21st Primary. Blago is going to “eat her up and spit her out”. And then again, he might just playfully shake her about as a dog does when it catches a rabbit before the dog finally ends it by biting down on the rabbit’s neck.
I wonder if McKenna could still withdraw his support from Judy at this late date and throw it behind one of the other three remaining GOP hopefuls? Blago is probably eagerly making contributions to Judy’s campaign so that he gets to face this GOP lightweight in the ring after March 21st rather than one of the three GOP middleweights. This is going to get interesting.
I can hear Andy McKenna now, “Calling for Doctor Kevorkian!”
- Mr . Ethics - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:41 am:
Remember when Blago was going to rock the system with ethics and political contribution reform. What ever became of that? It was just more puffery. This reform has been promised in the past, but nothing ever gets done. The people have the power to vote these career politicians out! Although and quite sadly is it rarely used.
- the Patriot - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 9:42 am:
This is exactly the type of Dirt Blago is banking until March 22. McKenna needs to ok the other candidates to take off the gloves for his beloved Judy. If it airs and she survives then it loses the shock value for Blago. If it airs and the voters don’t want her so be it.
It is also exactly why we need Bill Brady. Since making his comment that he was the cleanest candidate I have seen no one able to dispute that with any examples otherwise. The party has to have somebody clean to fight blago. Not enough dems will cross over in the general for a “Im not as bad as he is bad” republican. They may for a, “I am good but he is bad” republican.
- Rick - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 10:58 am:
Not much punch here. Look at the wording, and remember that Judy has *billions* to invest, and can’t put it all in one basket. Most banks have some connection with these and other public funds, and most banks do involve themselves in the political system with contributions.
Funny how Judy’s opponents do business with those who do business with them, a common business practice, and no one worries. Of course, when your political opponent does it, it becomes “pay to play”.
I’d check out Judy’s tax returns and see if she’s getting rich off her public service. Hint- she’s not.
- Reddbyrd - Wednesday, Feb 22, 06 @ 11:14 am:
Here is a great example of why all the hand wringing on ethics is silly and likely to lead to more people shooting themselves in the foot.
AccordianGal is “guilty” of taking $$ from banks who BID on state biz.
The reporting is silly and lazy, but to be expected. The reporting fails to tell us if the money raised over the LAST 12 YEARS is 1% or 90% of what AccordinanGal has raised. A high number could suggest some questionable decision making.
Did I mention the biz came from bids.
Too bad some smart editor did ask that question yesterday.
And Poshard did hurt himself big time with his self imposed limits. He got no credit and drew negative press for anything that approached a “violation”