56 Comments - Leigh - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:43 am: I would like to know when companies with key legislation are throwing money left and right at politicians. It helps me to understand their votes. - Leigh - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:44 am: And therefore, political reporters are doing their job by reporting on these contributions. - This Guy - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:46 am: Campaign contributions are, by and large, little more than legal bribery. Laws should limit contributions to a specific time frame in which a candidate is actually, actively running for office. Donations any other time suggest bribes for legislative backing of questionable agendas. If someone is already in public office, s/he is drawing the salary that goes with it. Why are “campaign contributions” allowed when a candidate already has the job, and especially when the next election for said office is forever away? Why won’t lawmakers change the rules? It serves them better financially if they don’t, that’s why. Use your brains before you vote, people. We can do so much better! - Esteban - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:46 am: It never ceases to amaze me that state-regulated monopolies are allowed to make campaign donations. - Korn Fed - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:50 am: Yes, pol reporters do make too big a deal of this. Donations drive the campaign and even pols own influence. The campaign contributions simply help pols listen, the pols will continue to represent their constituents. A few contributions may need closer scrutiny but the problem is not so bad. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:50 am: Let’s be honest, it only matters what political reporters report if: 1) The lawmakers in question vote in such a way that their vote appears tainted; 2) They have a credible opponent in the next election who is able to amplify those political reporters using paid media - tv ads, radio and direct mail; That said, why Sen. Clayborne would be foolish enough to keep so much money from the electric companies, given the political storm in the Metro-East over utility rates, is beyond me. However, any lawmaker can always use the fabled response of State Rep. Jay Hoffman when confronted about the need for campaign finance reform and the influence of money: “I have no idea who gives me money. My campaign treasurer handles all that paperwork.” - This Guy - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:51 am: Sorry for the rant. To answer the QOTD: I don’t think too big a deal can be made of campaign contributions. We elect people to serve, not keep secrets and negotiate under the table with special-interest groups. Government should be open, except for certain security issues, obviously. I also think the problem is indeed so bad that each donation should be examined, questioned, critiqued and analyzed to the hilt. - FED UP - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:52 am: calling these contributions is being kind this is bribery. Funny thing is though the people who make the laws on what is bribery are the ones getting the bribes - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:53 am: If you’re gonna call it “bribery” you need to explain yourself more. That’s a pretty bold assertion and needs to be backed up with some facts. Also, if you think that all contris are “bribes” then how would you change the system? - Korn Fed - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 10:03 am: The LAY public’s willingness to believe that campaign contributions are “bribery” fuels the sensationalism that brings us these news stories. Reporters and news editors know that a certain number of people will check the headlines and get excited. Excitement sells…Should political reporters push this crap to sell newspapers? Probably yes. Stories about politician’s contributors “de-pants” the pol but ARE NOT A REAL ISSUE. - ZC - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 10:04 am: Reporters do make too much of them. They’re a legitimate story, but the problem is they are now getting to be a fairly _easy_ story - that data gets put out by some watchdog group, and the votes are also easily available on a database, and journalists just scoop it up. Reporters too often don’t engage in the hard work of really _looking_ at those contributions, and the context, and the lawmaker, and whether or not they truly consist of some conflict of interest or not. Campaign contributions and public opinion polls are the two most over- and poorly-reported stories in the news today, for similar reasons. - ZC - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 10:11 am: The bribery charge is hard to prove. A lot of it has to do with what constituency you are from. Glenn Poshard came from downstate Illinois, and no surprise, donors with coal interests gave money to him. George Ryan murdered him for that in his 1998 ads, saying Poshard had sold out to Big Coal’s money with his actions. No; he was representing downstate Illinois. No bribery there. On the other hand, anyone who doesn’t think bribery ever occurs should check out the cases of Reps. Bob Ney, Bill Jefferson, Duke Cunningham, and (possibly soon) John Doolittle and Jerry Lewis. - Highland Online - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 10:13 am: As a former campaign manager for a state senate candidate who ran on this very platform,I can say the voters didn’t buy it so ultimately it doesn’t matter what the reporters write. - Ghost - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 10:28 am: Donation information is not very useful by iteself. If you give somone 300 dollars, and they have a million dollar warchest. The contribution is a non factor. We need to know how much total money is on hand, and how much of it comes from the lobby or its friends. If its not meaningful perctange then the implication does not follow. However missing from all of this is the idea that x percent of fund are from groups regulated by or overseen in total. So each group may give a small amount, but encouraging folks you have control over to give money, and that being a good chnk of your campaign funds, signals a major problem. I would just ban under the ethics act or gift ban act the ability to give campaign money from persons who do buisness with the State, or who are regualted by the state, including lawmakers. - keepin up with the jones - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 10:54 am: Like they say campaign donations are legal bribes. Again ConCon needs to address campaign donations since the politicans will not clean it up. Why elese spend $500,000 to 1,500,000.00 on a job that makes $60,000.00 but can make your friends and family even more. Right Mr. Jones. - Captain America - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 10:56 am: “Pay-to-play- politics” is a huge problem in Illinois. “Pinstripe patronage” is where all the action is in government/politics today. We have numerous investigations, indictments, and convictions to prove it. The electric companies were not making campaign contributions because they were interested in supporting dedicated public servants and wise government policies. There was a deliberate attempt to shape the outcome of a significant public policy issue that affects every resident of this state. Money buys access and purchases influence,if not votes. $17,500 is a significant amount of money - there’s definitely a vested interest and potential conflict of interest. $300 is small change. A former roommate explained to me the mechanics of legislative “fetchum bills” introduced primarily to attract contributions from interested parties. Campaign contributions are the mother’s milk of politics. Transparency and disclosure are the best remedies for questionable situtations. So I think the press and various watchdog groups have a duty to the public to monitor and report on significant camapaign finance contributions, when it appears they might have some bearing on the outcome of a policy or contract decision. Given the epidemic level of corruption and influence peddling in Illinois and other local jurisdictions, I think press attention and reporting is entirely warranted. Unwarranted conclusions and sensational headlines should be avoided. Press skepticism is entirely in order. Inform the public, but let the public reach its own conclusions. - Fan of the Game - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 10:58 am: I like knowing, but sometimes the knowledge doesn’t change my mind about a politician or an issue. It is a real story when: 1) The total contribution is large (Forby’s $300 is nothing) 2) The issue is being debated 3) The politician votes in a way that favors the contributor I like that people and businesses can make contributions. That is free speech. But I like knowing to whom, from whom, and for what the contributions are being made. - "Fed-Up" - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 10:58 am: These reports should be thoroughly reviewed. I am one of the all electric users who saw rates increase 118% in the first 5 months. It does not take this long to finalize what appears to be their “solution” (which will not be much help to most of us) unless they were waiting to see what they might be offered in campaign contributions and also to see how long their constituents would be upset with their electric bills. I really feel they hoped we would go away but to our credit we did not. “Thank you” for investigative reporters. - This Guy - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:02 am: Okay, maybe “bribery” was too strong a word. But how can anyone deny that campaign contributions (esp. the out-of-season variety) could appear to be influence-based? All I’m saying is that there should be some serious checks and balances in government. We do NOT need a state agency to police another state agency, especially when a single pol party is in power. The media business is but a single check-and-balance component. So are government watchdog groups. So are lawmakers. And voters. If we all work together, we can get things done and progress forward. If we don’t, well, just look at the current budget situation. ‘Nuff said. - A Non - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:05 am: The alleged $300 contribution to John Bradley from ComEd actually went to Rich Bradley. The reporter made a mistake in assuming that Citizens for Bradley was for John, not Rich. It’s a better story if it’s John - one of the leading voices against the rate hikes - but it’s not true. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:07 am: The political solution for the politician, is, of course, to take donations from contributors on all sides of an issue. That way, the politician has more money, and can claim that all voices were “heard” before deliberating on the vote in question. - Little Egypt - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:08 am: Forby’s contribution was a knock down for him pushing for a rollback of the electric rates. I do, however, commend political reporters for staying on the subject of campaign contributions. If politicians had their way, they would not have to report a dime of money. Rich and the rest of the reporters, keep holding their feet to the fire. The more transparent politics becomes, the better it is for John Q. Public. - Underdog - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:11 am: YDD’s right - contributions only matter to voters if politicians are acting in a way that seems tainted. Alderman Ted Matlak took big hits because voters thought he was overdeveloping the ward while taking money hand over fist from developers. Now, every Alderman in Chicago is taking money hand over fist from developers, but voters don’t care. It only mattered because there was a viable opponent and because the contributions were just ‘proof’ of something people already felt - that Matlak was a tool for developers. - Capitalist Pig - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:25 am: Maybe some reporting should be done on the reporters? Of course there is influence peddling, some of the worst of which is in the news business. As soon as we know what the objectives of the “reporter” are, we can then talk about the objectives of the “reportee” - Capitalist Pig - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:27 am: To be more specific…If we take money out of politics, then the only message heard is that of the news organizations. I, for one, don’t trust them much. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:33 am: This irritates me greatly. I do not believe campaign contributions should be considered “free speech”. Campaign contributions on a large scale give a company or a citizen an avenue the rest of us do not get, which is often access to an elected official and, at times, access to earmarks and contracts. This is a problem. If a Congressman or state legislator were to open their scheduling books and show the public how much time is spent meeting with lobbyists and interest groups, the general public would be shocked or, at the very least, angry. Compare that to the time an elected official spends meeting one-on-one with constituents or hosting meetings and that makes elected officials look even worse. Of course, I don’t think donating to campaigns is a problem. The old lady who met Barack Obama at a parade and decided to donate $20 because he was nice and polite should not cause the same concern as an attorney in Chicago who dumps $20K into the governor’s account because he wants something. I don’t know if bribery is the word here, but I think it is close. PACs and groups who donate large sums of money clearly want something in return. As we Americans grow more educated and cynical, we need to put more scrutiny on the money that flows into politician’s and candidate’s campaign accounts. It’s only fair to want answers and cooperation from those who are elected to serve us and those who really do work for the general public. And that is why I think people like Alexi G. and Danny Hynes are onto something good. We need to push ethics reform through before the budget passes to that some of these shenanigans end before next year’s election cylce heats up. No more excuses! - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:36 am: And I must also add that James Clayborne disappoints me. I like him and think he is very intelligent, but he serves a fairly disadvantaged area (as a whole, not entirely). He is doing a very poor job of representing them if he is taking money from big utilities and doing little to help pass rate relief for some of his poorer constituents in East St. Louis and Belleville. - Reddbyrd - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:37 am: The easy answer is: absolutely It is an easy story. Numbers are on line and there is no lack of unexperienced academics and/or foundation payrollers (some paid by the same evil businessse that make the donations) to bag off. Maybe tomorrow Rich make the QOTD which is more — political donations or the money the evil corporations spend on “advertising” - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 11:40 am: TS, how can you claim that Clayborne isn’t doing anything on the rate relief issue when he is the top Senate negotiator on the relief package? Sure, he wasn’t the most aggressive person when it came to pushing for bigtime relief, but in the end his name will be on the bill. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:11 pm: It is about myths - Since the end of the Civil War, corporations have become political fodder for politicians who claim to represent constituents over businesses. As politicians demonized businesses as though there were some kind of evil cabal destroying the world, they reaped the political benefits by winning elections. After fifty years of telling these myths, and Marxism becoming popular about the same time, our governments have become anti-business organizations politically. On the other hand, they recognize businesses as not being some kind necessary evil being, but as businesses which create jobs, earns income, grows communities, and lifts lives from poverty and want. While politicians crusade against evil capitalists, they return to their offices and act like responsible adults - usually. Now we have these stupid anti-business myths from the 20th Century polluting our political dialog. We have Democrats claiming to be populists all over again, as though Marxism wasn’t shown to be the fraud it was and Communism and Socialism a sack of costly empty promises. The ying and yang of government regulations verses pro-business economic health is being played out here. The anti-business throwback think anything corporations do as evil acts, so they don’t want them contributing to any campaigns. They don’t want them to expand, build businesses or factories, hire citizens as competative wages, or allow them the freedoms to do their work. These so-called “progressives” see businesses as pockets to pick, regulate, and complain about while all the time enjoying the benefits created by these organizations. Corporations deserve responsible representation too. Do you really want to run a business and pay for a government to meddle, fine, regulate and hobble your ability to succeed? You would have to be an idiot to want that. Corporations deserve access to the legislators who make the laws business work under. No decent manager or owner of a business would be willing to let a bunch of politicians who prattle about with NO business experience controlling their companies. So stop harping! Illinois has become one of the most anti-business states in the US, yet claims it wants a piece of the global market action. So, your actions in the General Assembly and in the governor’s office will determine what Chicago’s business future will be. So far, Chicago is becoming regionalize, not globalized. It’s economy is rapidly becoming dependant on regional economic factors, not national or internation ones. These are bad signs for those who want to see Chicago as a world city. As long as we continue to let politicians paint businesses as heartless demons, Illinois will continue to lose it’s place in the world market - and we will all lose. Let them contribute. Ignor the myths. - Justice - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:14 pm: No to first question, and a resounding yes to the second. Call it what you may, contributions from large “interested” corporations in many instances have the appearance of bribery. According to non-action to date, ethics legislation appears not to be in the interest of either the legislators or the lobbyists. I agree whole heartedly with Ghost. I too would ban, under the ethics act or gift ban act, the ability of any elected or appointed official or anyone running for public office to receive campaign money from persons who do business with the State, or who are regulated by the state, including all lawmakers at all levels of public service in the state. We desperately need clean government. There’s always hope! - Fan of the Game - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:16 pm: Team Sleep, We all want something in return for our contributions, whether they be $20 or $20,000. Some of us want politicians to act upon an ideal and others want access or an earmark. But we all want something. - Marbley - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:20 pm: Limit contributions. The People know what is going on now more than ever due to the expert political reporters. And in any event without great media back in Lincolns day’s where backroom or backyard politics began it was common practice to donate to the party’s of your choice. I don’t think donating to campaigns is a problem. I think its the way that the people look at who gave what amount and why. This amount should be limited across the board. Abe Lincoln said, “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time,” the late president said this in what probably is his most famous single quote. - Legaleagle - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 12:53 pm: It’s too easy a story for a reporter. The press also needs to analyze the ‘hidden’ contributions. For example, a candidate self-righteously says he accepts no money from PACs or trial lawyers or whatever, but then accepts campaign money from a political party fund, which gets its money from PACs , trial lawyers, and whatever. He is ‘laundering’ these contributions, but this practice never seems to get reported! - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:06 pm: Rich, who’s to say that isn’t a way for Clayborne to look good after all of this? After all, most people only pay attention to the bottom line. For his district and his constituency, Clayborne should have been rabid about this issue and should have pushed for it first thing this session. By not doing so, he appears as though he is only concerned now with passing Emil’s budget by clearing the rate relief hurdle and keeping in good graces with his constituency. That is just my opinion. And Fan, duh! My point lies more so in knowing that a firm or individual who drops that much coin into a campaign coffer obviously wants something more. In our political reality, does a retired person who sends in $10 really think he or she can secure a half an hour of face time? I would bet not many. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:10 pm: ===That is just my opinion.=== As I’ve said many times before, just because you have an opinion doesn’t make you absolutely right. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:25 pm: And Rich, I may be absolutely wrong. I’ve never been in any negotiation sessions or dinners with Senator Clayborne and his staff, so I could be way off-base. - Lobster - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 2:01 pm: Campaign contributions are more like a tax than a bribe. Generally, you don’t want to give, but you do anyway. Even to candidates who never support you. The larger corporations, unions, and associations give to EVERYONE. As for access, even the most generous lobbyists get most of their access to lawmakers by waiting around the statehousr for hours and hours and hours. (Am I wrong about his Rich?) The other way is by skipping time with your family and attending to legislative food and drink needs in downtown springfield. There is however one truth about access, If you give a donation and attend a fundraiser, you will get to talk to the candidate. But mostly, in the famous words of Jesse “Big Daddy” Unruh ,Speaker of the California house, “If you can’t take what the lobbyists offer and still vote against them, you don’t belong here.” - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 2:18 pm: Lobster, you are correct in several ways. Many, perhaps even most, contributions are solicited by candidates. People always tend to blame the lobbyists, but unsolicited donations are often given because a member or a candidate has a particularly strong record on an interest group’s issues, rather than an incentive to vote a certain way. Sure, those contris can help keep members in line if they start to stray. But many lobbyists will tell you that they’re the ones being shaken down, not the other way around. There’s no doubt that some percentage of contributions are not exactly pristine. But it’s not the widespread bribery that so many make it out to be. And not every little contribution has to be suspect. Sen. Clayborne raised $199,377.85 during the filing period. The $17,500 he got from utilities and generators equals 8.8 percent of that total. That should’ve been put into perspective. If he was getting most of his campaign money from the utes and gens, then I would have more reason to wonder. - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 2:19 pm: It depends. Often times a reporter will use the fact that a pol got one or two thousand dollars and make it sound like a quid pro quo. And yet when the D-2 stories come out, the really huge contributions (six figures) are often ignored or relegated to a 10th paragraph without anyone analyzing what contributors may have received for their enormous contributions. A good example of this happened in 2002 when Rod was first elected. He was one of only two Illinois Democrats who had voted against federalizing airport security workers. Everyone knew at the time that he had close relationships with SEIU which opposed federalizing. So Rod makes this vote, and then low and behold, when the D-2s come out, it turns out he had received $260,000 from SEIU around the same time. Now I’m not saying the vote was bought and paid for, but the SEIU contribution was referenced in the 19th paragraph of the story with absolutely no commentary or analysis of the SEIU gift from either the Sun-Times or Tribune. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 2:24 pm: Also, some of the language in that story was unnecessarily overheated and biased… ===companies lined some lawmakers’ campaign pockets=== Please. - Little Egypt - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 2:39 pm: If a politician has a fundraiser with really pricey tickets and invites only those he/she knows are lobbying organizations with the big bucks who continually try to influence his/her vote, one could say that politician is just beating the lobbyists at their own game. However, couldn’t one just as easily say that is a form of blackmail on the part of the politician - you attend my fundraiser and pay $1,000 for a ticket and you will get “easier” access to me. And the lobbyist/organization/corp. will also have a greater probability that the politician will vote the way the ticket purchaser wants? Bribery (inducement, enticement), blackmail (extortion, to obtain from a person by force or undue or illegal power or ingenuity). It’s all the big corrupt political system in Illinois. - Sweet Polly Purebred - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 2:41 pm: Based on the information below - taken from the website - http://www.redleafinstitute.org/index.cfm?page=rr&category=&subcat=unionsil - the word bribery hardly covers it. “SEIU had been working for many years in Illinois trying to organize providers. They worked closely with the Illinois Child Care Bureau and the state child care resource and referral system in their advocacy work. Previous efforts by the state’s child care advocates had not been successful in raising the subsidy payments for providers. SEIU also was a strong supporter of Democratic governor Rod Blagojevich, endorsed him in the 2002 Democratic primary, and became one his largest campaign donors. Governor Blagojevich signed an executive order granting providers the right to organize with the state in February 2005. Family child care providers overwhelmingly elected SEIU as their negotiating representative in April 2005. Once negotiations began in July, it took about five months of bargaining before the contract was agreed upon.” - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 2:57 pm: LE, campaigns are the basis of our democratic system, so you can’t get rid of them. And unless you are for taxpayer financed campaigns, I don’t see how you can successfully separate dollars from politics. On the one hand, some reporters will write stories blasting candidates who can’t raise enough money to compete. But then we also get stories (often from the same people) about the money being raised to fund those very same campaigns. - Hugh - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:03 pm: My expectation of the press with respect to campaign contributions is that WHENEVER an article mentions Pol X and Co. Y, I want to see contributions from Y to X. Not in the lead, but somewhere. There’s no need to editorialize on a possible relationship, but campaign contributions are FACTS and they need to be reported. Trust the readers to interpret. Campaign financing underlies too much of our news. You can’t understand events without understanding campaign financing. I’m disappointed when i KNOW the contributions are there and they are NOT reported as part of the story. - Little Egypt - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:04 pm: I’m liking public financing of campaigns and term limits more and more. Also an IQ test for politicians wouldn’t be a bad idea either. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:22 pm: I agree with Little E. The time has come for the public financing of elections, especially here in Illinois. There is too much going on and the public deserves to have clean campaigns and elections. Maybe it is also time to rid the state of lobbyists and consultants. Let companies and groups write letters and make phone calls to offices like the rest of us have to. Then we’ll see what happens. I know all of this seems like heresy, but I think we’re at the point that we need some wholesale change. - Truthful James - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:38 pm: Did somebody say term limits? Did somebody say limit total campaign contributions to the sum of the candidate’s salary over the term of office? I guess not. - Fan of the Game - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:49 pm: - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 1:06 pm: And Fan, duh! My point lies more so in knowing that a firm or individual who drops that much coin into a campaign coffer obviously wants something more. In our political reality, does a retired person who sends in $10 really think he or she can secure a half an hour of face time? I would bet not many. ————————————————- I agree, but that says more about politicians than it says about contributors. - Ghost - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 3:55 pm: 8.8%? Bah thats a pretty meaningless contribution. Rich mentioned an excelletn point I offten forget: Many groups support canidates post facto because of their record on issues importnt to that lobby. i.e. they want to keep the canidate around who generally is voting the way they want to go. Thus most contributions are not so much incentive for future conduct but support for somone whose views they are more aligned withh then the portential opposition. Muvh better the devil I know and all that. - Hugh - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 4:39 pm: Q: How would you change the system? Put a HUMAN BEING’s name on every campaign contribution. Ban corporate contributions. Citizens have a right to free speech, but it’s not clear to me corporations need one. Corporations can’t vote, but they can sure steer issues. Get back to government representing PEOPLE instead of corporations. - FED UP - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 5:07 pm: Rich what do you feel is the differance between a contribution and a bribe. Giving a politican money to support your position does fit my definiton of a bribe. Do you or capitol fax accept contributions from lobbyist to support there positions on your blog? - Will - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 6:26 pm: Ameren is throwing so much money around that I think it deserved far more coverage than it received. However, I also think the media should report their own sources of funding. Did the large amounts of money spent by ComEd and Ameren through their CORE front group affect news coverage of the issue? I’d like to know. If it changes how politicians vote then why shouldn’t I believe it changes the way companies report the news? - Squideshi - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:27 pm: In my opinion, political reporters do not make enough of a big deal about campaign contributions. All contributions need to be examined with a skeptical eye. It’s crazy that we have such a system where campaigns can be privately funded! - Squideshi - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 8:30 pm: “If you’re gonna call it “bribery” you need to explain yourself more. That’s a pretty bold assertion and needs to be backed up with some facts. Also, if you think that all contris are “bribes” then how would you change the system?” I also consider all contributions legalized bribery. Campaign contributions buy influence, plain and simple. How would I change the system? I would implement full public financing of public elections, making elections more about a competition of ideas, rather than who is the best fundraiser or who has the wealthiest friends. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Jul 19, 07 @ 9:33 pm: Rich, I think it’s one of the great BS issues of our time. It deals only with appearance of impropriety. If bribes were actually being given for votes, wouldn’t the US Attorney for Northern Illinois have noticed and indicted someone by now? Appearance of impropriety is unavoidable because it is measured in the eye of the beholder, not the eye of the doer. If I start with the premise that you are unethical, I can find information to support that. I may think that something you write after having being given access to the Governor is, in effect, bought and paid for. You know it isn’t. Contributions are made for a great number of reasons, not the least of which are ideals and principles. But, even when they aren’t so noble, how is giving money to a candidate who supports issues you agree with improper? How is preferring “the Devil that you know”, as someone mentioned earlier, improper? How is contributing to the opponent of a legislator with whom you disagree, or who espouses ideas you abhor (pro life/pro choice, for example) improper. How about to a candidate you know personally, and on and on? How about SEIU contributing heavily to a candidate they know they can work with? Since the grassy knoll, we’ve lived in a time where people are paranoid about government, and see conspiracies everywhere. That generally makes them either ill-informed or stupid, not right. BTW, I’ve very rarely been solicited for contributions, unless you count receiving mailers announcing receptions or golf outings, etc, which are virtually identical to the ones I get from my alumni association. On occasion I get letters from candidates I know, but only once in the past 20 years do I remember a politician personally asking me for a contribution, and I have no doubt he did it because he knew I would want to be asked. And I don’t ever remember giving to a candidate when I didn’t want to. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.