28 Comments - Anon - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 10:30 am: “All Constitutional officers should issue executive orders, comparable to George Ryan’s Executive Order #2 (1999), prohibiting their campaign funds from accepting contributions from state employees under their control. The Commission further encourages all candidates for public office to adopt similar policies.” Irony at its best. The “Reform Commission” should also include the warning: all ethics legislation you approve will carry the force of federal law — and no matter what you establish as penalties for any violation, the federal government reserves the right to call it a felony and sentence you to 20 years in prison for it. - Legaleagle - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 10:30 am: Patrick Collins is a former AUSA - but he has no savvy or experience in governing or in political campaigns. So his ideas need to be discounted somewhat. Second: how many legislators have the resources to report every contribution within 5 days? Contributions now do not go to their government offices. I know legislators who don’t even get to their campaign mail for weeks at a time (especially between elections). Let’s be real here. - George - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 10:40 am: The revealing statement: ““I’ve never seen a limit that’s going to make a crooked person honest,” Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said.” No, Stevie, but they do help prevent crooked people from getting into public office. Mr. Brown’s statement only applies if you are thinking only about incumbents - which he and his boss are. - Cittern - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 10:45 am: On the subject of procurement–The point of procurement is to obtain the services, materials, and supplies that government needs in order to do its job. It is important to ensure that graft and corruption do not prevent proper procurement. It is almost equally important that the act of preventing graft and corruption does not prevent proper procurement. The current system generates substantial levels of problems in securing the tools that bureaucrats need. Reform efforts should focus on getting the job done, with minimal undue profit, rather than focus on eliminating undue profit, at the cost of ever actually getting the job done. A more focused approach on where such graft actually occurs rather than blanket imposition of burdensome procedures where no real graft occurs would be welcome, but unlikely. - the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 10:54 am: Rich notes: Frankly, the commission’s proposed $1,000 trigger for disclosure of statewide contributions within 5 business days and the $500 trigger for other campaign committees may be a bit too high and too long. I understand why 5 business days seems long, but it’s actually a pretty short timeline for a candidate who actually vets contributions. My concern over a timeline shorter than 5 business days is that an honest politician could receive a contribution from a Rezko-like character and would not have time to return the contribution before having to report it — and being attacked for receiving it. I realize that searching for a politician who vets contributions carefully in Illinois is about the same as Diogenes’ search for an honest man. Nevertheless, I think reform ideas need to take into account how an honest politician would operate. - Ghost - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 11:09 am: Thwey missed a big one in my book. may th State Civil Service Commission and independant body, with elected judges. The comission is the watchdog on the Governors agencies hiring, exmpemtions, pay, layoff etc. This needs to be a neutrasl body. On the independent procurment agency I think this is a bad idea. An agency that will not be using the products or services it utilizes, and therefore is insulated/isolated from the effects of its decisions, will be making the decisions? This part of the current CMS nightmare for many agencies. Imagine the decisions about which field equipment to buy, which health supplies to purchase etc is made by a group that never need use them. The procurement process includes the ability to throw out the lowest bid if the products provided are not suitable for the intended use, or the provider appears unable to deliver for the cost submitted. Now the decision will be left to a group that has no real consequnce for bd proqurement. Cheapest is not always best/wisest (penny wise pound foolish). Strenghen the procurement laws to allow for an independent review of decisions, and ability to block decisions which can not be substantiated/justified. But leave the process and evaluations in the hands of the users. - anon - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 11:12 am: Yesterday to House of Representatives Election Committee voted on a contribution limit bill and it failed because the republicans. Contribution limits dont solve the problem. - Amy - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 11:13 am: I think Patrick Collins’ expertise is missed at the USAttorney’s Ofice. - Merit Comp Slave - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 11:17 am: Again, Ghost, you hit the nail right on the head. Put procurement back to the agencies, with appropriate oversight. - lake county democrat - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 11:19 am: Disclosure is fine but it doesn’t solve anything, just causes a bit of embarassment. That’s why George W. Bush pushed “disclosure” over campaign finance reform. And caps can be worked around through bundling — see President Obama for advice on that. I really don’t know what works — term limits? - Bill - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 11:21 am: What a big waste of time! This is typical Quinn. Lots of press. No action. The only difference is he doesn’t have to wait until Sunday anymore. If anything passes it will come complete with plenty of large loopholes. - Scooby - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 11:22 am: There’s certain practical considerations that make some well intentioned suggestions difficult to implement. For example the shortened timeline for reporting large contributions is difficult but manageable. However anything more aggressive than that is problematic. You need time to reconcile bank statements and credit card statements. Contributions from credit cards sometimes don’t post to your account for several days, and the processing fees that you pay to process them also don’t always get deducted immediately. Same thing with the expenditure side, if you have multiple staffers with credit cards for spending even if you have online access to your account (so you don’t have to wait for monthly statements) there are still any number of things that either won’t post right away or show up temporarily. The point is that a lot of financial transactions take a couple days to reconcile and there’s certain practical considerations that well intentioned people trying to follow the law would struggle with. The other issue that is very difficult to define is bundling. The FEC just started forcing federal committees to report the bundling of any federal lobbyist over a certain amount about two weeks ago. But you have to come up with a legal definition for what bundling is (and isn’t) which is hard to do. Well intentioned people will find it difficult to interpret whether or not certain situations fall under the reporting requirements of bundling and people with malicious intent will find a way around the rules. And this was well put and so true: “Actually, you’d be surprised at the number of people who give ten bucks who then think they somehow own those candidates.” - Quinn T. Sential F/K/A Blago Sphere "TM" - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 11:40 am: I am not sure that this represents the “full report” since it is marked as “initial recommendations”, and its scope is limited. In fact, the report itself indicates that: {With its 100-day mission far from complete, the Commission also briefly previews the core topics it expects to tackle in the days ahead in its six chosen topics.} With that said, I believe Rich’s keen sense of political cynicism and finely tuned Illinois politics radar perpetually spinning over to the right side of the page here have probably already detected some worthy issues that call into question the timing if not the substance of all of this released yesterday. First; it seems to me that these “initial recommendations” have been hastily assembled and presented under the misguided notion that there is some sense of urgency associated with the pending indictment of the former Governor. Since the panel was appointed by Governor Quinn, is there a presumption that the release of the information on these subjects right now is something that Quinn can take credit for initiating? The “best offense is a strong defense theory” at work. Was this done in an effort to distance himself from Blago in the minds of the electorate, and be perceived as the “one person” in Springfield that is actually attempting to do something about the circumstances which precipitated the indictment in the first place? After all, Quinn’s appointed panel will be perceived as moving with expediency, while the Joint Committee on Government Reform, was “still meeting”, and has not come forward with any comprehesnive set of recommendations of their own. Are Patrick Collins and Rev. Willis et al enabling the formation of this perception unwittingly, or worse yet, knowingly? Is there some perceived advantage in leveraging pressure on the legislature to act on these “initial recommendations” immediately before the self imposed legislative deadlines this week? What about their releasing this aspect of the “initial recommendations” in a coordinated fashion with the timing of the Grand Jury indictment, which is indeed coming tomorrow? Rich is astute in always remembering and also in reminding readers that; in politics not everything is always as it seems. Politics is a man-made process, and bears no relationship to any laws of nature; other than human nature, and all human beings are flawed in some way. Politics is also not an exact science; and in fact is not even a science at all other than the hypothesis upon which any political theory or strategy rests is developed over time through experimentation which is performed and then perfected on the basis of trial and error. As a consequences there is no natural order per se, to political activity and order and predictability will always be somewhat elusive and illusory as a result. In Politics; not only is it true that evrything is not always as it seems but it is likely NEVER GOING TO BE WHAT IT SEEMS; because politicians are not incfluenced by the natural principles that are orderly, structured and predictable. Instead, politicians are simply driven, driven by expediency; political expediency. The patrons who support the politicians financially are often equally expedient, as long as the end justifies their own means. Those on a “blue ribbon panel” like this who may be perceived as independent and apolitical and might otherwise seem well intended, unfortunately are also sometimes clueless and rudderless in circumnavigating the otherwise complex sea of perverse human social behavior exhibited in all forms of political activity. Political activity which is only temporarily; and often times just momentarily interrupted by any effort to actually govern. Any governing that may actually occur intentionally, or even accidentally, no matter whom is driving it, is influenced by politics and any notion that the common good is being, or will be served is simply misguided idealism. - The KQ - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 11:54 am: It is interesting to me that the powers that be are once again joining ethics reform and procurement reform. This approach was also taken in the ’90s and in my opinion by linking the two concepts together made the result weaker. If I remember correctly, ethics reform and procurement reform were folded into one “ethics package”. Also remember that the current procurment code is the result of a “Blue Ribbon Commission” and it is based on best practices defined by NCSL. I would be curious to know what additional procurement details would be posted online. Currently, there is a posting for just about every step in the procurement process on the procurement bulletins (there are 4 of them). The biggest, run by CMS, can be viewed at http://www.purchase.state.il.us Pingback ArchPundit | Campaign Finance and Ethics Reform - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 12:21 pm: […] Rich has a very good post up at Capitol Fax discussing the ethics commission recommendations. […] - Quinn T. Sential F/K/A Blago Sphere "TM" - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 12:51 pm: I am climbing back on my soap-box of political theory for a moment to pose this series of esoteric questions to the enlightened readers of this blog, which were prompted by the initial recommendations in the report . The report indicates that: {We appreciate that a number of our recommendations are bold; yet we do not contend that our proposals alone will solve all that ills Illinois. However, we think that enacting these tangible proposals—with an accompanying attitudinal shift—will be a positive first step to address the crisis directly.} So my question is; whom do you think the committee is suggesting undertake the the “attitudinal shift”, the governing class, or those governed? What is the likelihood that the attitudinal shift will actually occur for either. What demonstrable actions would need to take place for you to begin to believe that the attitudinal shift had indeed taken place by either group? Even if such an “attitudinal shift” were to initially occur in either group, what could best ensure that it was sustainable for the long haul? - Captain America - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 1:12 pm: RE:Competitive Bidding and Minority Contracting for Cook County Health Service Medical Supplies I am totally in favor cf contract set asides for women and minority-owned firms. However,I don’t think the government/taxpayer should be required to pay higher/premium prices to meet legitimate set-aside objectives. Procurement contracts should be competitively bid. Then women and minority contractors should be given an opportunity/challenge to match the low bid submitted by non-minority firms in x percent of cases sufficient to meet the set-aside objectives rather than paying a higher price to the women and minority-owned firms. I think women and minority-owned firms would be able to rise to the challenge of matching low bids. - Steve Brown - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 1:20 pm: George: I am not sure I understand your logic….perhaps you can offer me an example. In the meantime, my personal view makes me believe the idea of limits as a great solution This is especially true when there is no safeguard for attacks funded by unregulated groups. I am sure there will many changes this session. - George - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 1:38 pm: Steve - Your comment implies that limits would be trying to make crooks honest. They aren’t. We aren’t. We are just trying to keep the crooks out of government. - yorfriend - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 1:47 pm: Reform Proposal — Cheap TV/Radio for candidates. I won’t disagree with anything said here, but suggest we expand the options of limiting the influence of money. What drives the demand for political contributions? the cost of campaigns, specifically TV advertising. Cost, Cost Cost — is completely neglected in the quest for reforms. Why must it cost $20 million for TV and radio in 2006? Now, I admit this is a huge can o’ worms involving the FCC, but why not force TV to charge only 10% of the normal advt. rates for political advertising. They’re public airwaves, who gave the media conglomerates the righ to control free speech by making profits hand over fist during election campaigns? Cheap advertising cuts the COSTS of campaigns, and that eases demand for contributions and reduces money influence. Thoughts anyone? - BGA Dave - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 3:16 pm: Why do those that oppose limits always insist that it is either a silver bullet to solve all problems or it shouldn’t be done? Campaign finance limits are an essential step to take one of the most outrageous abuses out of our system. It is not the end but only the beginning. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 3:40 pm: I agree with Cittern. There needs to be some balancing regarding procurement. It is critical that government can do its job at a reasonable price. We are getting to the place most private sector firms won’t bid on government contracts due to the time it takes and the amount of info that has to be supplied. Unless you repeatedly bid, it doesn’t make sense to even try. This drives up the cost and limits the competition. I also agree with yorfriend. The reality is the need for money is a direct result of the high price of the media. In the case of the airwaves, they are public property, and we should be able to require free time. My cynical view is this issue won’t see much play in the media for obvious reasons. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 5:03 pm: I have two comments. One, campaign contribution limits have not achieved much reform in DC. Why do so many think they will here? Second, the independent procurement board idea is a great example of nonplayers trying to apply their expertise to real time operations. agency y needs a consultant on x issue, and the procurement agency finds them one. If the consultant screws up, Agency Y can’t meet its statutory obligations, users/constituents get real unhappy. the Gov gets the blame (its his Agency Y failing to perform, after all). The Director of the agency gets his b___s busted by some GA committee and the procurement agency has no skin in the game. Great Solution! - DuPage Dave - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 5:17 pm: The procurement proposal is far too complicated. The existing procurement system is burdensome, and these changes would make it extremely difficult to get anything done. Not everyone is a crook and very few contracts are crooked. Big contracts (however defined) can be put up for bid, but there are lots and lots of contracts– particularly for serving people with disabilities– that have never been called into question and frankly, there’s not much competition for. I don’t think this group knows much about contracts, how they are done, why they are done, or what the state is buying. They seem to know about a few crooked deals they read about in the papers. - Steve Brown - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 5:52 pm: Crooks are crooks whether they are pols, bankers, doctors, journalists, etc. If the governor could not get 50K from some stooge he would tell the stooge to find 25 friends with 2.5K each. It makes more sense to take away the delays in reporting and wipe out other hiding places so there is a real chance of disclosure either by Internet wizards like the Fax or ….so there more of a likelihood of getting caught. Keep in mind I am the one who think nearly all workers, candidates and those who do biz with government are honest, play by the rules and obey the law. Have a great evening - Marcus - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 7:36 pm: The State Civil Service Commission is not an independant body or the watchdog of the Governors agencies hiring, exmpemtions, pay, layoff etc. as stated. Neutral bodys do exist to monitor and investigate these areas however there are some issued with the independance. For starters if you look at our (CMS)employment database you will find layers of political protection (positions)under the old design which enable agency Directors to filter and tweek information, contracts, hiring and so on before final decisions are stamped with approval at the Directors level. In my opinion, all positions directly below the agency director position should be covered poositions where employees do not work at the will of the director, therefor the best interest of the state can take priority, not the best interests of the director and or governor who appoints the director. This, I believe would eliminate or at least identify some of the abuse that we have witnessed in state government. The inspector general employees for example are not covered by the personnel plan which means that they do not exist in our system. These employees are not covered or managed by CMS or state policy. They therefor are tasked with conducting investigations for a director who is appointed by the governor. These employees have no union or CMS protection, their only protection is to please the director to whom they serve, who pleases the governor who appointed them.These people must be entered into the state system with protections to merely protect the integrity of their work such as the State Police. True reform means true changes, thinking outside of the box. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 8:15 pm: Identifying subcontractors is a great idea. I was shocked to read weeks ago that IDOT couldn’t identify the subcontractors on the Ryan project. That’s an enormous loophole where you can hide clout. - Chicago Guy - Wednesday, Apr 1, 09 @ 9:02 pm: Contribution limits are nothing more than an incumbent protection act. Incumbents can easily raise money in small increments. Challengers need help from some big donors. Ban contributions from those doing business with the government but don’t confuse caps on donations with “reform.” Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.