[I’m taking the subscriber protection off because other outlets are now covering the issue.]
* 3:13 pm - Senate President Emil Jones has agreed - for now - to not call a hostile amendment to the supposedly agreed ethics bill.
Jones introduced an amendment late this morning that would have barred all contributions from most contractors to all constitutional officers and candidates.
In other words, if someone had a $50,000+ contract with the comptroller’s office, they couldn’t contribute to Treasurer Giannoulias’ campaign committee.
It also would also appear to mean that legislators, including Speaker Madigan, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois, would be prohibited from raising money from state contractors. UPDATE: Misread of the amendment on my part in conjunction with Jones’ explanation below. According to Jones’ spokesperson, the amendment would only apply to other statewide officials, not legislators. Sorry for the confusion. But it would prevent Giannoulias, Lisa Madigan, Dan Hynes, etc. from raising money from contractors under Blagojevich’s control in anticipation of a far-off and still undeclared bid for governor.
Jones just said that he would hold the amendment today, but a few hours ago there was some concern that the ethics package might be dead - a week after it was apparently made an agreed bill.
The Senate won’t vote on the bill today, partly because there’s a bit more work to be done on other issues. More on that and other stuff in tomorrow’s Capitol Fax.
* 3:27 pm - Senate President Jones explains a loophole that he’d like to see closed [but isn’t introduced yet]…
Senate President Emil Jones — a Chicago Democrat — says the money ban has a “gaping loophole.” He says it simply means people will give money to political parties to distribute to candidates.
*** 4:24 pm *** I had these stories posted below but I’ve moved them up to this post for easier viewing…
* The Daily Herald…
Lawmakers and other state officials are likely to get pay raises because the Democratic leadership in the Illinois Senate does not plan to let members vote on whether to block the increases, lawmakers confirmed Thursday. […]
State Sen. Rickey Hendon, a Chicago Democrat, said he thinks the rejection effort is flawed and claims state House members are using the Illinois Senate as a political fall guy on the issue. Hendon said the Illinois House votes to reject the raises all the while expecting the Senate will block rejection and everyone ends up with more money. […]
As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Hendon controls whether the plan to reject the raises ever sees the light of day. […]
“People should not miss out on the fact that [Sen. Susan Garrett, a pay raise opponent, is a] millionaire. She don’t need it. Have you seen her house? Mind-boggling,” Hendon said. “So it just blows my mind how the filthy rich are always the ones saying, we don’t need the raise. No she don’t.”
* The AP…
Hendon’s comments came after Garrett told reporters he would not let the House-passed resolution advance in the Senate. Hendon said he never told Garrett he was blocking the House resolution. But he made it clear he intended to improve it, pointing to his role in changing a House-approved measure calling for a constitutional amendment on recalling officials. The Senate killed that version last week.
Hendon said lawmakers should consider applying his pay raise approach to other issues, such as a statewide construction program lawmakers are negotiating.
“If people aren’t man and woman enough to take the tough votes, then they shouldn’t get it anyway,” Hendon said. “But every time, they’re the first one in the line.”
- GoBearsss - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:34 pm:
“He says it simply means people will give money to political parties to distribute to candidates”
That isn’t a “gaping loophole”, that is legislative intent. Just look at who controls the Democratic Party of Illinois.
- Anon - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:39 pm:
If its good to ban vendors from contributing to a constitutional officer who grants contracts, what would be wrong with taking it a step further? I’m sure that there are a number of businesses in the state that would love to see this ban pass.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
- Ghost - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:59 pm:
I think the ammendment is a good idea…. But it probably goes too far and impinges at the first amend rights of the contractors.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:07 pm:
Check update. Misread on my part.
- Little Egypt - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:09 pm:
I just can’t let my blood pressure rise because of anything Emil Jones says. I consider him sooooooo non-existent and wish the Senate would too - especially come next time they elect a Senate President.
- Loop Lady - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:14 pm:
Rich, Is Emil bailing on the Gov at long last?
- Vote Quimby - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:16 pm:
sj-r.com has a story where Jones says something about getting food stamps….YIKES!
- Amuzing Myself - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:20 pm:
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but if it does limit the likes of potential candidates as well as current office incumbents, I actually think that’s an improvement. Not sure how you enforce that if they haven’t formally announced, which would be an interesting caveat for say a Brady versus a Jack Franks. Brady has made it fairly clear in media reports he’s running again. Franks is talked about but hasn’t announced. Wonder how that might work itself out? Very interesting.
Write it down. I don’t believe I’ve every agreed with Emil Jones on ANYTHING.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:21 pm:
How would Jones be bailing on Blagojevich?
- Little Egypt - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:31 pm:
Who is on this board that recommends pay raises and how does one apply to be on it? There doesn’t appear to be any qualifications for this, just the ability to raise your hand and say yes. Sign me up. I’ll introduce them to the word “NO”.
- Crimefighter - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:36 pm:
Add this to the list of amendments in a con-con…the statehouse must vote to approve a payraise instead of vote to reject a payraise. If they fail to approve a payraise, they don’t get a payraise.
- Loop Lady - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:39 pm:
Would he like to see the loophole close for real, or is this just another reason to keep it in committee?
Also, is the Senate stuck with Emil? Do the Senators have any recourse to can this I-can do-nothing-unless-Rod says-to in the IL constitution?
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:53 pm:
The Senate these days is making more improvements to the house than Bob Vilas.
- Learning the Ropes - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 5:45 pm:
@Ghost
I could be wrong, but I believe the Supreme Court decided that you cannot limit how much a person contributes to their own campaign, but other than that limits are acceptable (Buckley v. Valeo).
Now, To the Post…
The only way to close all (or at least most) loopholes would be to expand prohibitions to Labor (they can receive benefits as well), PACs and Political Parties. Of course you would also need limits on transfers as well to halt the shuffling of funds. Not to mention expenditure limits… but a bill that covered all that wouldn’t have a snowballs chance with Hades. So I think they’re doing the right thing of trying to be focus and get something done, loopholes or not, and tackle something else next.
Breakdown of State Contribution Limits
- Fed Up State Employee - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 5:49 pm:
I am just sick now knowing that Emil and Rickey have a complete stranglehold on the Senate. As if it weren’t bad enough in the past, this is almost unbearable. It’s going to be a long summer.
Also, if someone has contact with Rickey Hendon, would they please ask him if he would consider taking a remedial English class? He is an embarrassment.
- problem - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 6:24 pm:
Somehow, I don’t see consolidating all the fundraising in Illinois with Mike Madigan is an improvement.
It seems ironic that an “ethics” bill is being pushed by an individual that would funnel all contributions away from his political opponents to him.
This would be a huge power grab by Madigan over politics in Illinois.
- StuckonStupid - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 6:25 pm:
I have to wonder why Senator Hendon has Never proposed a law where the recommendation of the Compensation Review Board HAD to be VOTED ON to be approved by both the House & Senate. Hell maybe at the same time too.
“If people aren’t man and woman enough to take the tough votes, then they shouldn’t get it anyway,”
This 12 person review board sets the law on salary increases… unless overriden by those who get increases. How about a law where rank & file employees get the same deal.
Can anyone guess who said this
“Rising costs of gas, health care, and basic living essentials have put financial pressure on the average American worker. While prices of goods continue to rise, American worker’s wages remain stagnant. I will support legislation that benefits the American worker and prevents the outsourcing of American jobs. “
- problem - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 6:28 pm:
That’s the central problem - you can’t do campaign finance reform piecemeal.
As the political scientists like to say, money is like water - it finds every hole.
In this case - the contractor can just contribute to the party, or PAC, or legislator, who just transfers that money to whoever they want.
- Amuzing Myself - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 6:29 pm:
Wordslinger:
I suppose by “improvement” you mean killing any type of reform to come across the from the House.
He’s mentioned a couple of nice ideas that would be improvements if they were actually made part of the bill and voted out of the chamber. But just running off at the mouth and then not letting anything actually pass - usually while voting AGAINST it - is hardly “improving” on reform legislation from the House.
- StuckonStupid - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 6:35 pm:
Oh I forgot… going by this statement “If people aren’t man and woman enough to take the tough votes, then they shouldn’t get it anyway”
I assume that Rickey will ensure that a vote in the Seate does cccurs so that they can all show that they can make the though vote. Ya Right
- some former legislative intern - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 6:59 pm:
Hendon’s comments about applying the pay raise formula to other issues, like the capital bill, don’t make any sense. Does he mean a commission would put together a bill and it would be approved unless both houses rejected it?
Emil should tell Ricky to zip it up. He is causing the Senate Democrats to lose even more credibility and is making them look bad in general.
Too bad he was relected, although Mertens and the other guy ran horrible campaigns. Mertens had promise, but proved she was not ready for the big time.
- Princeville - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 7:09 pm:
some former leg. intern—”Hendon said lawmakers should consider applying his pay raise approach to other issues, such as a statewide construction program lawmakers are negotiating”.
I might have it wrong but I took this to mean that he wants with CP like he wants to do on the raise situation. If it passes and one voted ‘no’ then that legislature does not get his/her piece of it. Example: no raise if you voted not to support it, no piece of CP pie if you don’t vote to support it. I’m sure if I’m wrong, I’ll be corrected shortly.
He’s been talking all day, and he’s just been in his new position less than 24 hours
- Truth - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 8:05 pm:
I respect the honesty of the legislator who wants a pay raise and isn’t afraid to say so to those that want one, but say they don’t.
Whatever you say about the Senate Democrats, you can’t say they are not telling the truth on this one.
- One to the Dome - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:25 pm:
I agree with truth. The senate may be crazy, but they are principally right. its foolish to think the benefactors of a pay raise will donate it to charity. how many legislators (hose or senate) gave back their last increase who voted against the pay raise? Nada. I guess they can have it both ways…grandstand and pound their fist against the pay raise, but cross their fingers behind their back.
- Only two things - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:48 pm:
1) There is this crazy thing called the First Amendment which gives people the opportunity to associate with whomever they want and whichever political party they choose. There’s a big problem with taking what was supposed to be (i) a ban on the connection between contractors and those who award contracts and (ii) making it a ban on contributions to just about any candidate or political committee. House Bill 1 was a perfectly fine bill, and I believe Fritchey and his staff worked with the Senate to make House Bill 824 even better. But the Senate is just screwing things up. For the “upper chamber” they definitely have the “lower” IQ.
2) Rickey Hendon is about as bright as an energy efficient bulb - it may last a long time, but it just seems to be dimmer than a regular light bulb. He’s not doing anyone any favors by letting the pay raises go into effect.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:23 pm:
The more I read of Ricky Hendon, the more I wonder how he was elected….He can’t even use proper grammar in speaking….he is an embarrassment…
- Mustang Sally - Friday, May 9, 08 @ 6:51 am:
And, how would Ricky Hendon feel about fellow Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter)that take the extremely “brave stance” of voting “Present” on these hard decisions?
Actually, I have more respect for those legislators “that at least have a spine” and vote how they feel about an issue (like we elected them to do) than those politicians down in Springfield that we can depend on to be undependable and who vote “Present” so as to avoid anybody being upset with them. They will do anything to further their personal political career.
And as far as Ricky Hendon’s grammar or intellectual level, if you think Ricky is a Liza Doolittle, then I certainly hope you don’t equate Emil to a Professor Henry Higgins!
- Learning the Ropes - Friday, May 9, 08 @ 7:35 am:
@Sally
When you have leadership who is willing to not only cut off your Senate Dem funding and not give your committee any bills, but also willing to redistrict you into oblivion or even sponsor a challenger to get you out… I respect those that have the will to vote against the insurmountable pressure put on them by the powers that be.
Don’t equate being outspoken or firm in a yes or no vote as “having a spine.” You’d be surprised at the ruckus sheep can make.
- anon - Friday, May 9, 08 @ 7:50 am:
Mustang…in this case a “present” vote is still supporting a pay raise… a position that is clearly unpopular. Its easy to vote against a raise..and still get it.
- Rebel13 - Friday, May 9, 08 @ 8:14 am:
With regards to the pay raise, the Senate should at the very least bring it to the floor for a vote. Let’s see the real vote!
- wordslinger - Friday, May 9, 08 @ 9:10 am:
Amuzing–
As was the case with recall amendment, Hendon plans to “improve” the House pay-raise rejection resolution in order to kill it. I understand. My Bob Vilas comment was intended to be “amuzing.” Maybe not so much.