Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » About that ethics bill… *** UPDATED x1 ***
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
About that ethics bill… *** UPDATED x1 ***

Wednesday, Sep 24, 2008

* As you already know, the Senate passed a broad ethics bill yesterday that was identical to the governor’s amendatory veto language in another ethics bill.

There’s been little actual analysis of this particular bill, other than the sharp criticisms about it being a product of Gov. Blagojevich’s mind so, therefore, it can’t be much good.

There are actually some decent ideas in this proposal. But some of it is just goofy.

We are supposed to have a citizens assembly in Illinois, not a full-time professional legislature. This bill begins the process of trying to define who can and cannot be a member of the General Assembly. That’s a foolhardy step. Here’s the language

No member of the General Assembly, during the term for which he has been elected or appointed, may be employed by the State, a municipality, or unit of local government. This prohibition does not extend to employment as an elected official, firefighter, police officer, school counselor, teacher, or university instructor.

As one Senator pointed out earlier this week, the bill’s fine print allows a legislator to teach at a university, but not at a community college. Another noted that a legislator couldn’t be a part-time high school coach. Still others have complained that a doctor or nurse at Cook County Hospital would have to give up their jobs.

This is what happens when you start drawing lines. Where do you stop? Should farmers be excluded because they receive massive government subsidies and special tax breaks? What about business owners located in TIF districts? What about state government contractors, most of whom are now banned from contributing to the governor’s campaign fund?

Cindi Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform made this point to Eric Zorn yesterday

Getting rid of double-dippers sounds great, but there are so many exceptions in the bill that it’s sure to be challenge as a violation of the equal protection clause.

I fully agree with that.

* I have no problem at all with extending that contractor campaign contribution ban to state parties. As Senate President Emil Jones rightly notes, it will be just too easy to get around the gubernatorial ban - which also applies to declared candidates - by washing the cash through a state party. Since Attorney General Lisa Madigan is gearing up to run for governor, that seems like a reasonable worry. Same goes for the Republican Party.

Cindi Canary strongly disagrees

(I)t makes no sense to ban political parties and individual legislators from taking contributions from people with state contracts because parties and legislators don’t enter into those contracts. If [Blagojevich] wants to limit parties and lawmakers, he should try to do it with contribution and transfer limits. This approach is a waste of time.

Contribution and transfer limits may or may not be a good idea. The transfer limits might quell the legislative leaders’ stranglehold on campaign money. But the contribution limits have done little to no good in DC politics. I just don’t think this contractor thing is a “waste of time.” Good for the goose, good for the gander.

*** UPDATE *** Here’s a clarification from Canary…

Unlike HB 824, SB 780 would prohibit campaign donations to political
committees that have no connection to the officer who lets the contract. Because that kind of ban treads heavily on contractors’ constitutional rights to free speech and association, the courts likely would rule it to be unconstitutional – but only after a lengthy and expensive court battle.

Example - Under the governor’s proposal, the owner of a company contracting to supply the Office of Treasurer more than $50,000 in computers, copiers, legal services or anything else would be prohibited from making a contribution to any political party, every state legislator, every candidate for the General Assembly, every statewide constitutional officer and every candidate for those offices.

It’s very likely a court would rule that an infringement on free speech.

Because campaign contributions are a protected activity under the 1st Amendment, legislation to regulate contributions must be narrowly tailored to address a compelling government interest. That’s what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. A wide-ranging BAN like that would not meet the test of a narrowly tailored restriction on campaign contributions. However, a LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT of a contribution by individuals - whether an executive with a firm contracting with the
state or not — to ALL political committees would pass any constitutional test.

To sum it up — Because it quite likely would be ruled unconstitutional, it isn’t worth the effort to try to expand the ban on state contractor (the corporation, executives, owners, etc.) campaign contributions. It would be better to spend time on something we know to be constitutional — banning contributions by ALL orporations (whether doing business with the state or not) and by all unions and associations. At the same time, Illinois should limit the amount that any individual person can contribute in an election cycle and limit how much a political committee can transfer to other committees.


* I agree in part with Canary here…

Some pieces of this bill are fine. The affirmative pay raise provision [requiring lawmakers to vote for legislative pay raises instead of allowing them to get the raise by not voting against them] is a fine idea. But it should be stripped out and run as a separate bill, not embedded in all this other crap.

Why not put it into a broader package of reforms?

* Nobody, no group, has the singular right to own a particular issue, so I disagree with some of this

I resent the idea that suddenly Blagojevich thinks he gets to set the agenda on what real ethics reform is with this slap-shot proposal. We’ve been working the pay-to-play ban for three years, and how he want to ram this through in 24 hours.

He’s the guv. He can do what he wants. And he does. lol

* And, while a bit harsh, this is spot on

The senate voted to approve it today, but all the conversation I heard on the floor was how the bill wasn’t really ready, it sure needed more work. It looks to me as thought [the members of the senate] decided to vote for the bill to give themselves the ability to tell their constituents that they voted for ethics reform. It looks like a very cynical vote to me.

Cynical? Yep. Effective politics? Maybe so.

* Related…

* Gov misleads on ethics reform

* State Senate Approves Ethics Bill

* Governor strikes back: pass ethics proposal of their own

* Senate approves ethics reforms

* Evolution of the ethics bill

* Ethics? In Illinois?

* An ethics step, but more are needed

* SJ-R Opinion: State ethics overhaul must be done right

* Senate passes Blago-backed ethics bill

* PJ Star View: Illinois ethics law overdue, but welcome

- Posted by Rich Miller        

  1. - Bill - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:56 am:

    So stuff that ICPR (we?)work on is good and everything else is bad? Why should ethics apply only to this particular governor? Don’t you think that allowing contributions to state parties is the same as allowing them to the governor, current one excepted?
    Who elected Cyndi and ICPR to be the final arbiter of ethics?
    It is business as usual with Rod cut out of the graft.

  2. - Dan S. a Voter and Cubs Fan - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:02 am:

    The GA is missing a great oppurtunity for ethics reform, they should start by impeaching this Governor then work on legislation for going forward.

  3. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:06 am:

    I suspect a lot of this stuff is poison pill and wouldn’t withstand constitutional challenges.

  4. - The Doc - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:07 am:

    Bill, come on. I think we all agree that similar ethics legislation applicable to the GA (and, in my mind, extended to local pols as well) is both fair and necessary. But that you’re defending the most investigated governor in the state’s history regarding ethics is laughable. He’s had six years to create and promote ethics reform, and is now asking legislators to hastily adopt his bill in a couple of days?

  5. - Slightly Right - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:17 am:

    The double-dipping portion of the legislation makes little sense. Why allow a Chicago Police Officer to serve as legislator and not a Cook County Nurse? I fail to see the logic in exempting some but not others. This is not a full-time professional legislature, nor should it be.

  6. - Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:23 am:

    I’m probably more against double dipping than the average taxpayer, but I don’t want to have a dictatorship in this state.

    The point is to work through the legislative process. Ideas are put in the mill (from all sources including the Gov.) and with any luck, a final product emerges including the best of the ideas.

    In most instances the input from good government organizations is well worth considering. It is certainly not gospel, but there will always be some good points.

    Despite Bill’s paranoia, realities do have to be considered. While the Governor and many offices are considered full time, should they be treated the same as part time legislators as far as outside employment? I don’t have an answer at this time, but the Governor should not have a right to take away an income from someone by the stroke of his pen.

  7. - GOP'er - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:24 am:

    If Canary doesn’t understand how money gets funneled in this game in this state, she should get off the field.

    Leaving the state parties out for example would just make things worse. Awful incentives would be created, plus it gets harder to follow the money. You’ll see money being passed on but it will be impossible to prove a violation.

    This already goes on in some of the big judicial races where a corporate donor doesn’t want to give to the judge or future judge directly, because they don’t want the judge they are electing to have to exclude himself or herself from any future case involving that company. A state party or another group (like the Chamber of Commerce) will be the go-between instead.

    The real question is do we just want “feel good” legislation, or something that will really address the problem.

  8. - Captain Flume - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:25 am:

    == Cynical? Yep. Effective politics? Maybe so. == That string of words effectively encapsulates the public’s perception of politicians and the reality of governing in Illinois. We all are a party to the way this state is run, because saying we are messed up is our excuse for being messed up. I think we are all sociopaths on this bus.

  9. - lifer - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:28 am:

    Maybe I am being too simplistic but why can’t it be a full time job. Then there is no parsing of what someone can and can’t do. They are a legislator–period. Raise their pay and restrict any outside employment. Lord knows there is plenty of work that needs to be done from May to January (minus the veto session)not just January to May.

  10. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:34 am:

    The Governor’s proposal to ban double dippers is simply mean spirited- I’ll show you- legislation and shouldn’t have seen the light of day. I believe all of the individuals singled out by the Governor were employed by the governmental body previous to being elected to the part-time State Legislature. The voters chose to allow them to work in both places. To change the laws now is unfair and if passed there should be grandfather clauses which would protect their longevity.

    This is in addition to the points brought up by Rich Miller regarding what constitutes a governmental position. I believe police would be excluded. What does that mean? Get yourself on the Cook County Sheriffs payroll and everything’s okay?

    What is ethically wrong would be misusing your influence as an elected official to benefit yourself and family. Some examples include, the Governor getting his wife a job at a state funded not for profit institution in which he has direct control of funding or his sister in laws activities in getting contracts for a landscaping company with state contracts she is employed by.

    The problem is when the official is exercising undue influence because of the Governmental positions-not what positions they hold.

    The Senate did the cowardly thing in passing this and the House should bury it.

  11. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:43 am:

    ===. Raise their pay and restrict any outside employment.===

    That’s worked so well for Congress.

  12. - GoBearsss - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 10:48 am:

    The problem with Cindi Canary’s argument is that it reeks of “It wasn’t my idea so I don’t support it”-ism.

    Frankly, the last ethics bill didn’t take three and a half years to get done. It sat for three and a half years because there were certain obstacles to getting it done.

    It passed because the door opened.

    The door has opened again. If Cindi Canary and company close that door now, then it WILL take another three and a half years to get done.

    They could have passed this yesterday. They had the language for a month, so they had plenty of time to work up their “fixes”.

    Do it now before the door closes again (and it most certainly will after the election).

  13. - lifer - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:17 am:

    =that worked so well for congress=

    Anything is better than what isn’t working now.

  14. - pro - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:38 am:

    Yea, what “hard work” actually took place during those 3 years?

    It has been proven time and time again, that if the speakerand president want it, it will pass.

  15. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 11:56 am:

    Lifer, just because Blago says it’s not working doesn’t mean it’s true. When legislatures are in session they are only paid for their elected job. They never truly double dip. Most legislatures I know make more money at their regular job than they do for the elected one, so when they are in session all summer long they lose money-some lots of it.

    Again, Illinois corruption problem is from what elected officials do with their influence-not what jobs they hold.

  16. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:10 pm:

    I agree with Bill and Go Bearsss.

    Cindy is full of BS. Any contributions to any politician or political group can grease the skids.

    Overall/over-reaching and “sloppy” reform is better than narrow reform. If the Dems and GOP don’t like it, sue and try the matter before the Supreme Court. If the Supremes don’t like the language and amendments, have them make suggestions of what they wish to strike.

  17. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:16 pm:

    And blocking legislators from holding government jobs is a good idea. You could make all the exceptions you wanted, but you would still run into conflicts of interest.

    City of Chicago employee? Votes to give $$$ to Chicago-centric programs and city-run offices/agencies are tainted.

    High school principal? Any vote to increase school funding and any specific money designated for that school district reeks of underhandedness.

    Community college professor? Do I even have to mention the pitfalls?

    Seriously: removing doubt and “what ifs” are always the best policy.

  18. - Irish - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 12:22 pm:

    If all these other folks might have a conflict then lawyers should not be allowed to practice law while they are a legislator. What is more conflicting than having the ability to pass legislation to change a law that might not be good for one of your clients?

    I’ll bet that one wouldn’t get far

  19. - Hooey - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 1:39 pm:

    Slightly Right: If ours is not a “full-time professional legislature,” then we sure as heck shouldn’t continue paying them full-time salaries. I don’t think there’s much objection to legislators having a second job but there seems no overarching benefit for allowing legislators to have a second CITY, COUNTY or STATE job. Maybe I’m missing something . . .

    GoBearss: I think you may misunderstand the reason for ICPRs criticism. They didn’t object because it wasn’t Canary’s idea; they objected because the language was unlikely to withstand the court challenge made inevitable by the sloppy drafting, setting back reform for how ever many years that will take to untangle.

    I don’t think Canary’s aim is own this issue; in fact, she may be sick and tired enough to hand it off for a latte right about now ;-))

  20. - GoBearsss - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 2:16 pm:

    Rich -

    Also want to point out that Madigan’s move to line item all the pork projects last year, and line item every project in a capital bill almost necessitates that lawmakers face the same restrictions.

    You vote to give money in a budget directly to an entity, you shouldn’t be able to collect money from that entity. Even though that money is technically coming from “DCEO” or “Ag”…

  21. - Captain Flume - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 3:04 pm:

    == And blocking legislators from holding government jobs is a good idea. You could make all the exceptions you wanted, but you would still run into conflicts of interest.==

    Public sector employees may have less personal gain from such conflicts than those from the private sector. Imagine a legislature full of bankers, lawyers, insurance agents, doctors, nurses, car dealers, guns shop owners, restauranteurs. Now imagine all the industry-friendly laws and consumer-unfriendly laws that we might have to live with.

  22. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:14 pm:

    I agree with Bill.I’ve kinda been wondering when and how Ms Canary got to be the arbiter of ethics in Illinois government and politics.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* Reader comments closed for the weekend
* Speaker Madigan again busts the caps on his personal campaign account
* Exelon chief lobbyist given "final warning" on conduct
* Ald. Ed Burke is no longer a partner at Klafter & Burke
* The trouble with Harry
* Today's quotable
* Question of the day
* Congressional roundup
* Caption contest!
* Cannabis roundup
* Another lousy audit report for DCFS
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Fundraiser list
* Rockford airport finally gets its state money
* *** UPDATED x2 - Trooper dies from wound *** Two state troopers shot in a week while serving warrants
* Fixes ain't free
* State Fair attendance said to be up 37 percent from last year
* *** UPDATED x2 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign updates
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...





Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller