42 Comments - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:18 am: Seems silly, really. I would guess most lobbyists do not have nearly as much money to spread around as the clients they represent. So Joe Business gives the contribution and Bob Lobbyist shows up and says “Hi. I represent Joe Business.” The idea of not allowing the lobbyist to give when the client still can is silly. The best solution so far has been to cap the dollars given. It respects the right to give, but levels the playing field somewhat. In that situation, the smart lobbyist will bundle. So there is no easy fix. The real solution is to only elect the most moral of our citizens to represent us. (One can always hope!) - Ghost - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:18 am: Yes, but limited only to canidates with whom the lobbyist either does business or who would have influecne over whatever the lobbyist is doing (voting for bills, selection of contractsm creation of rules etc) This gets rid of the appearance that a contribution is dependent upon supporting the lobbyists position. However if the Lobbyists has no dealings with a canidate, and the canidate is not invovloed in any way with what the lobbyist is lobbying for, then they should be able to donate. So for example a casion lobbyist fighting against slots at race tracks on the State level, could give money to a local mayoral campaign that is unconnected to the gambling issue. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:24 am: No. Lobbyists enjoy those same free-speech rights as any other citizen. The fact that they represent some special interest should have no bearing. We ALL represent a special interest of some sort, and we support and vote for those candidates who likely will support our ideals and causes. Lobbyists are simply doing what we all have a right to do. - Jaded - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:27 am: Yes please ban us from giving. Please, please! - Wumpus - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:28 am: Lobbyists represent an interest of the people who pay them. Just because ..tobacco may have a lobby, there are people who smoke and like to have that voice heard. Also, there are anti tobacco forces that have similar lobbyists and power. There is the NAACP, ACLU, AARP, Jewish Groups, Italian, Mexican, Polish, pro gaming, antigaming, alcohol expansion, Big Oil, pro-environment, NRA, etc. Everyone has someone representing their interests. I am sure no one will blindly follow one group, but most interests are represented. - Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:29 am: Since I believe that all campaigns should be government-financed, then yes. But I’m not naive enough to believe that will ever happend. I think starting with campaign contribution limitations would be the best first step to reform Illinois campaign finance. Let the lobbyist and union and PAC restrictions fall into place after that. - clj - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:32 am: If lobbyist can’t give money, Who is left? If we let this go too far, everyone that calls their elected official on an issue will have to register as a lobbyist and then they will be banned from donating. - Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:33 am: Fan of the Game - While you’re right legally about freedom of speech, I think Buckley v. Valeo and subsequent campaign finance reform decisions that have been handed down are absolute crap. Money is not speech - and I’m certain that our forefathers did not have the expenditure of money in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. - Chanson - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:34 am: I would cap donations from each individual, each lobby, each business. I would also cap the number of commercials, the length of each commercial and the number of times the commercial may be shown. Allow unlimited speeches and debates as long as candidates do not monetarily profit from these public or private appearances. Cap the total of dollars spent by each campaign. The amount of money spent on campaigns is obscene. - Speaking At Will - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:34 am: This is a definate no. Lobbyists represent real people, and provide a voice for those people in statehouse’s across this country. I am also not so naive as to think that banning “registered” lobbyists from giving contributions to candidates would change much. At least as it is I know who represents who. Under a ban on campaign contributions you would simply replace registered lobbyists with “unregistered” lobbyists whom served the same purpose without the paper work behind them. - Anon - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:40 am: I believe Illinois’ rules allowing unlimited contributions is a backwards way of being one of the most transparent systems. If you set up a ban, there will just be another layer of obfuscation between donors and officials. Keep it open and unlimited. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:40 am: No. Lobbying isn’t evil, per se. Every interest has a right to association and to have it’s voice heard in government. Participating in the electoral process is a right, too. As far as money goes, full disclosure and transparency are about the best you can do. Unless all media outlets want to give free ads, the U.S. Postal Service free delivery, United Airlines free flights, BP free gasoline and Motel Six free lodging, candidates are going to need some money. Lobbyists are just one of many boogie men that people blame for not getting the government they want. I’ve got news for you, folks — our governments reflect us pretty well. - Captain America - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:42 am: I think any ban on lobbyist doantions would easily be circumvented by creating surrogate organizations to channel the funds to legislators. I don’t consdder lobyyists evil per se. However, I think it’s a fact that we currently have the best government that money can buy. Lobbyists have disproportionate influence - so much that the general public interest is overwhelemed by various and sundry special interests. - 2for2 - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:45 am: Why don’t we just ban all fundraising. That way we can have only the independently wealthy win elective office. Just like the founding fathers intended. - Ghost - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 10:49 am: Most of our early elected officials were not independently wealthgy. in fact most had day jobs and served their elected job on the side. The Mayor would also be the Inn keeper or barber etc. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 11:02 am: No, just limit the amount they can give per year per company. That way big companies can’t outspend the smaller ones. - Cassandra - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 11:05 am: Publicly funded elections. It’s the only way. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 11:15 am: Bill S. Preston, Esq., The Founders didn’t have flag burning or armband wearing or bird flipping on their minds when they wrote the First Amendment, either, but that is what the SCOTUS has determined is “speech” in this country. It’s not a long step to see that my campaign contributions buy newspaper and radio ads, TV commercials, flyers, mailings, web presence, etc., all of which are speech or press. Banning lobbyist contributions would effectively restrict speech in much the way McCain-Feingold has done. - That can't be a serious question. . . - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 11:15 am: What? Come on, please. How tongue-in-cheek is this question? Can anyone imagine something that extreme being advanced in Illinois? - Belle of the Blog - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 11:17 am: No ~ lobbyists should be allowed to give as individuals, just like CEOs whose companies get contracts OR like teachers or nurses whose unions do lobbying OR politicians themselves … the examples are endless. Having lobbied for a nonprofit issue, I can attest that not all lobbyists are making big bucks and not all special interests are making big (or any) contributions. - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 11:28 am: All we need to do is to look to see if we like what the Mcain-Feingold campaign law has done for us. In my opinion, there are some definite abridgements to the rights of free speech there. Banning contributions from lobbyists won’t work because we will then argue about who is a lobbyist or who isnot. The simple solution is to have full disclosure available for al the monetary and non-monetary contributions. Trips, junkets whatever, all should be listed. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 11:30 am: No. Elected officials should be forced to wear NASCAR-styled suits emblazoned with whom they represent instead. So when they go out in public or enter the Capitol, voters can see who they really represent. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 11:31 am: Big guys like Jones can squeeze more lobbyist’s logos on his suit. Commonwealth Edison would be written on his back like DuPont is on Jeff Gordon’s. - Anon - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 11:37 am: No way. Let everyone give, as long as it’s fully an promptly disclosed. And, in response to Mr. Preston, donating money is donating resources in its most generic form. It is no different from volunteering your time, printing up and handing out fliers, or making speeches on behalf of a candidate. Why not ban those thigs, too? And, ever since radio and television came along, purchased advertising is an extremely important component of making your voice heard. Denying a candidate the resources to get his speech heard is the same thing as denying him the right to speak at all. - ZC - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 11:38 am: Are we going to ban contributions from the husbands and wives of lobbyists, too? What about their children? I don’t see this as a real solution. - Bill Baar - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 2:10 pm: Want less lobbying, get less government. The more government, then more need for lobbyists. But to answer the question, lobbying is petitioning the government; it’s speech and should not be banned. - Justice - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 2:43 pm: Not particularly fond of lobbyists but the playing field tends to be pretty even with the variety of representation available through them. I see it as a part of the right to petition. Each of us can do the same thing individually, and as a collective group. Both lobbyists and individuals should have the right to help fund a candidate. I would restrict foreign contribution if possible. Like was said…..elect only honest candidates, you know, much like Blagojevich!! - JGatz - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 2:44 pm: If you look at the lobbyist statute, it is poorly constructed with many too inclusive statutes and on the other hand many loopholes. Disclosure on the Elections website which cross-references the Sec. of State’s registration system and just notes that the person is a registered lobbyist when reporting contributions may be the best fix. The good thing for Rich and others that post, if you consider internet posts as the broadest form of “publishing”, everyone is exempt from registration and therefore free to give: {Following people dont have to register]…Persons who own, publish, or are employed by a newspaper or other regularly published periodical, or who own or are employed by a radio station, television station, or other bona fide news medium which in the ordinary course of business disseminates news, editorial or other comment, or paid advertisements which directly urge the passage or defeat of legislation.” - PhilCollins - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 2:46 pm: No, donations by lobbyists shouldn’t be banned. They should have the same right to donate as all other IL voters. - Will Co Anon - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 2:58 pm: I agree with the consensus “no”. Also, I find the “ALL” acronym hilarious. - A Citizen - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 3:06 pm: Illinois is the National Historic Site of governmental corruption. Louisiana is a runner up. We should be proud of our “wide open” political reputation and beat down any attempts at throttling the creativity of our catch and release legal system. Illinois’ corruption, pay to play, soap opera has enjoyed a well over a century run AND entertained us at the same time. Simply enacting full disclosure does make it a bit easier to follow though, and I’m all for that! However place no limits or bans on the process - it just wouldn’t be the Illinois/Chicago way. - 4% - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 3:43 pm: Absolutely not. Lobbyist are entitled to the right to support a candidate just as any other citizen would be able to do. ALL campaign contributions should be reported so that voters know who is funding each candidate. No limits on dollars. Finally, the Governor and legislators should RECUSE themselves on issues impacting their lives. To his credit, the Speaker often recuses himself on property tax issues. - Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 3:53 pm: Fan of the Game - Spending money is not speaking. It’s not rallying. It’s not publishing a flyer. First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It does not guarantee the most effective means of speech. It may be a short step from your campaign contribution to a candidate printing a flyer, but it’s a small step down a slippery slope. Even if the action of spending or contributing money continues to be considered ’speech’ and is therefore a fundamental right, campaign finance restrictions should pass a strict scrutiny standard. The government has a compelling interest in upholding the democratic process and ensuring that government is working for all people and not just some people. I know SCOTUS has found differently - but I’m pretty sure they were wrong. - Anon - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 4:08 pm: “It does not guarantee the most effective means of speech.” Now you’re setting up a straw man. There is a huge difference between the government not guaranteeing a candidate access to TV or radio or pamphlets and the government denying him access. It’s the difference between the government telling me that I, as the owner of a printing press, must print your fliers and signs for you and telling me that I cannot. - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 4:11 pm: How about no donations while the legislature is in session. Once the legislature adjourns, then donate away. Would allow everyone to avoid those donations that were closely made to a vote situation. - Cassandra - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 4:38 pm: Again, public financing of campaigns combined with prohibition on campaign contributions. Lobbyists could talk away but if they had no money or lavish trips, dinners, gifts, jobs etc to legally give out, and there were severe penalties to the pols and the lobbyists for trying to give them, then the lobbyists would have far less influence, about the same as the average citizen. - TaxMeMore - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 4:45 pm: The best way to get rid of lobbyists is to stop handing out poor taxpayers money like its candy. The Muntu Dance Theater, with Michelle Obama on its Board, is recorded paying $50,000 for a federal lobbyist to secure millions in government grants. The Muntu Dance Theater also got $10 million from the state of Illinois. (State-centric). When government sticks to providing the essential basics only, like handling floods, and stops robbing from the poor and giving to the rich, we won’t have to worry about an individuals freedom to do with their property what they want as long as they are not violating anyone else’s rights. Who is the victim when an individual that is a lobbyist gives money to a politician? Do we want to put people in cages for giving their property to another person? The only way to enforce a ban on what a person can do with their money is to lock them up. Hiring a hitman? Sure, there is a victim. Supporting a candidate? Anti-freedom nanny state nonsense. - Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 4:57 pm: Anon 4:08 - I can’t tell if you’re with me or against me. Monetary restrictions related to campaign finance are the least restrictive means of what SCOTUS has deemed ’speech’. A guarantee of freedom of speech is not a guarantee that you get to be on the TV 24-7 in six different media markets. It’s a guarantee that you can run on a certain platform, discuss your issues and positions with the people, assemble, and rally. That, my friends, is speech. - TaxMeMore - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 5:06 pm: Likewise, Cassandra, the only way to force taxpayers to pay for candidates and their campaigns is to lock them up in a cage if they don’t comply. Would you want to lock up American citizens for refusing to give money to David Duke or Lyndon LaRouche or Rod Blagojevich? Look at what the Ds and Rs do with the election laws already being anti-democratic, and you want to give them the power to tax us to pay for their campaigns and give them complete control over all that campaign money? Nothing personal, but that sounds too similar to Fidel Castro’s version of democracy. If you spend money opposing Castro, you go to jail (or disappear). That’s too close to what you are proposing for my tastes. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 5:07 pm: No red-baiting, please. Plus, your analogy is ludicrous. - TaxMeMore - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 5:59 pm: I agree. Putting people in jail for failing to give money to the politicians in power or for giving money to candidates running against those in power is ludicrous. Centralized state control over all money spent on elections, that is enforced by those in control of the state, is not a ludicrous analogy to the pretense of democracy Castro maintained in Cuba. But to make it un-red, I’ll also point out Iran’s pretense of democracy is similar to Cuba. Its about government power versus individual power, whether communist or religious or whatever. If the Democrats and Whigs had that much control over elections, do you think they would have allowed Abraham Lincoln to be on the ballot and given him tax money to run against them? - trafficmatt - Tuesday, Jun 10, 08 @ 11:11 pm: The trouble with sweeping bans on lobbyists’ cash is similar to a lot of other laws. Laws are sometimes the result of “a few bad apples”, so legislators make rules to keep the bad apples out. There are lobbyists that work for Cities/Villages and lobbyists that work for all sorts of organizations and not-for-profits. So, a lobbyists can’t go to a rubber-chicken dinner for a state senator?? I suspect that many would be in favor of banning campaign contributions from lobbyist that work for “Big-old Greedy Robber-Barron Company, Inc.”, but would welcome campaign contributions from the lobbyist working for “The Pious Sisters of the Poor”. Making sweeping restrictions is difficult. We could end up having the same problem at the State level that we have at the national level with 527 groups. So, you can’t give to the Senator, but you can do your own advertising, attack adds, etc. Be careful what you wish for. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.