|
You can’t stop a gangster with reforms
Monday, Apr 6, 2009 - Posted by Rich Miller * The SJ-R creates a straw man and then breathlessly sets it ablaze…
How about if we just argue the issue of campaign finance reform on its own merits instead of tainting people with arguments like this? Sheesh. I mean, it would be easy to write a snippy blog post about how perhaps members of a small group of well-known reformers want us to forget that they stood with and heaped praise upon Rod Blagojevich when he unveiled some reform ideas back in the day, despite very specific warnings from myself and others that they would live to regret it. Or, one could write about the various editorial boards which backed this or that Blagojevich reform without realizing - duh - that he was taking them all for a ride. But, I won’t do that… not today, at least. That said, it is imperative to recognize that Rod Blagojevich was an old school gangster, evidenced by his alleged 2002 plot to use the governor’s office to personally enrich himself. Notice how the above editorial makes no mention of that blockbuster revelation. New laws can’t prevent gangsters from doing what they do. Blagojevich has certainly given us a road map to reform on many issues, and we should learn some valuable lessons from him. But as the old saying goes, locks are designed to keep honest people out of your house. The same goes for reforms. My weekly syndicated newspaper column looks at some specific reform ideas, and I’ll run that tomorrow. * Dan Proft takes a whack at Patrick Collins, the chairman of Gov. Quinn’s independent reform commission. Proft believes that campaign contrbution caps are folly and designed to help incumbent Democrats here in Illinois…
Is it really necessary to impugn somebody’s integrity just because that person might be from the other party? The points about those three Democrats having a fundraising lead are valid, but there are plenty of Republicans pushing for contribution caps, so the conclusion just doesn’t fly. Collins’ arguments ought to rise or fall on their own merits without this sort of hyperbole. * The Tribune proposed some well-thought-out and much-needed reforms of the state’s FOIA laws in its Sunday edition. And the Illinois Civil Justice League came out for public financing of judicial campaigns as long as the campaigns were non-partisan and the candidates themselves were chosen by a bipartisan committee. * Carol Marin e-mailed the top state officials and asked “Do you personally support the Illinois Reform Commission’s limits on campaign contributions?” Here are their replies…
Mike Madigan responded to an e-mail?
|
- Vote Quimby! - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 1:30 pm:
I thought MJM signed up for Twitter….
- Hopeful - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 1:34 pm:
“House Speaker??? Tom Cross: Yes, but only with other reforms like moving the primary and banning lobbyist and labor union contributions.”
- Princess - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 1:52 pm:
“House Speaker” Cross (Bwhahaha :p ) wants to ban contributions from labor unions and some of the recommendations wanted to not let state workers contribute. I gotta ask. What’s next. Take the workers voting rights away too?
- Ghost - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:15 pm:
=== Secretary of State Lisa Madigan: === I wont tell jesse….
- Anonymous45 - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:16 pm:
Dear MJM: The voters aren’t that dumb, and besides, when I think of you I always think of how diverse your batch of mushrooms are…Ha! Please, spare me…you were way less transparent when Steve Brown did your talking for you…
- Jacksonville - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:17 pm:
Rich,
Off subject here, how about a big good luck to our Big 10 neighbors to the north. They need something to cheer about. Good luck MSU, Big 10 all the way!!
- carbon deforestation - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:17 pm:
Email from Speaker Madigan? Carol Marin should know better.
This too true comment was posted on Proft’s IL Review page: “I can’t get enough of the guy who gets rich on no bid contracts from Cicero preaching about reform.”
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:18 pm:
The Illinois Civil Justice League’s idea of campaign reform for judicial races is absurd:
“We have proposed a system for electing Illinois judges on a non-partisan basis. Candidates for judge would be screened by a bi-partisan (equal number of Republicans and Democrats) commission that would include lawyers and non-lawyers (equal numbers) and would be required to select judicial candidates on a bi-partisan basis. The required number of votes by commission members would assure bi-partisanship.
The proposed system would not shut the door on judicial candidates who are not approved by the commission - but it would make it more difficult for them to get on the ballot. Judicial hopefuls would be required to appear before the commission as a condition for being listed on the ballot.
Our proposal also provides for public financing of judicial campaigns - but only of those candidates recommended by the bi-partisan commission.
Who would appoint this commission? If its ME, I’m all for it.
But why do we assume that stacking the commission with lawyers would give us better judges? Judges are the referees of the judicial system. Would we get better baseball games if we let the players pick the umpire?
And Ed, allowing a group of Democrats and Republicans to pick our candidates for us is not NON-PARTISAN, its BI-PARTISAN. As in “combine.” Why no representation for the Green Party, Independents?
How does anyone think that allowing public financing of some candidates, but not others, or requiring candidates to be screened by a panel will EVER pass Constitutional muster? Ever heard of Democracy? If this is such a great idea, then why not allow a small panel to pick all of our candidates?
Which leads me to this:
What this is is a proposal to elect judges on a non-partisan basis and reduce the growing cost of judicial races and remove the selection process from the proverbial “smoke-filled” rooms in Cook County or Madison County or DuPage County or Sangamon County or 98 other Illinois counties.
You betchya. Now there will only be one smoke-filled room, and 16 people sitting in it.
The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association backed public financing of OPEN elections for judges last year. The Illinois Civil Justice League needs to get on board with Democracy.
- Fixit - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:23 pm:
House Speaker Mike Madigan: Not yet. “Limits could spur a growth in the number of self-financed, wealthy candidates. This harms the diversity of the legislature.”
There is diversity in the legislature?? You got to be kidding. If you want diversity how about having term limits!! It time to clean out all the old ways of doing things.
Why are they worrying about wealth candidates but not wealthy contributors. Whats the difference??
- Steve - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:27 pm:
Reform will only happen if the voters want it.There may be some segments of the voting population that are fed up with corruption: but is it enough to shake the status quo? I don’t know.I think term limits on all politicians in Illinois would be a major step.But,I doubt it will happen,I can’t see Mike Madigan voting himself out of a job.As long as we have career politicians in the same job for years the ability to facilitate corruption increases.Having said this,Blago proves a committed individual(with the help of others) can do great damage even if they aren’t in one job that long.The Chicago print media could take a more uncompromising stand against corruption.What would it take for Mayor Daley to not get the endorsement of the Sun-Times and Tribune,every four years? Is the Tribune going to go hard on a politician like Mike Madigan when Sam Zell has legal business with Madigan’s law firm? The Sun-Times and Tribune have yet to mention these Blago stories that made national news.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6559104
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6563408
- Wumpus - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:29 pm:
Who is supporting the campaign limits? incumbants and the well off (Oberweis, etc).
- Ghost - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:42 pm:
I am a bit cynical about public financing. To me, public financing is the method pushed by unelectable canidates to raid the state coffers and tax payers.
To me fundraising reflects, in part, the ability of a canidate to sell themselves to potential voters and supporters. if you are not able to seel yourself enough to raise meaningful cash support, are you really a viable canidate? I could stand behind a system which set a requirmeent that a canidate raise x dollars on their own before being elgible for additional public finacing; but otherwise I am concerned we are forcing tax payers to contribute for political campaigns which are not viable.
- Rob_N - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:55 pm:
What’s “E” mail? Are those political mailer Emil sends out?
Have you heard of these things called Webb Sights? What’s up with that?
- Captain Flume - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:57 pm:
Those we elect represent us are, in fact, us. Like the mushrooms in the House, who don’t mind being mushrooms really as long as they get fed enough, the voters of Illinois are very far indeed from the need for “reform.” We have sold our votes and are reaping the benefits. Some people know it and are bothered enough to cry out for “reform,” but most just do not care. It is that preponderance of those apathetic to the consequences, that are becoming the majority, maybe already are the majority.
- Chicago Guy - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 3:32 pm:
This is one of those classic ideas that everyone jumps on but has the opposite result of what’s intended. Proft was silly to impugn Collin’s integrity but he’s right about contribution limits being an Incumbent Protection Act.
Look no further than the United States Congress. Only incumbents can raise millions of dollars in 2300 dollar increments because there’s hundreds of special interest groups, trade associations, PAC’s and lobbyists who can bundle small contributions. And they’re all anxious to help those already in power and acting on their bills.
The result? Barring tidal waves like ‘80 or ‘94, there’s very little turnover.
- Dave D - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 3:45 pm:
How about for campaign finance reform we take all left over campaign money and apply it to the deficit created by weak kneed politicians who can’t say no. Furthermore, we need to ban the ability of the party leader to send his/her money to candidates in any race…should it be any surprise why Mike Madigan gets so many votes on legislation…he buys them.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 3:49 pm:
DD, simple solutions are usually neither and often spring from simple minds.
Just sayin…
- Steve - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 3:50 pm:
David D has a good idea here.Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to contribute money to other politicians.
- Speaking at Will - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 4:05 pm:
“New laws can’t prevent gangsters from doing what they do.”
Gun Control anyone?
- Hickory - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 4:13 pm:
Only registered voters in the candidates district should have the right to make contributions. Why should someone in Springfield have the right to make a contribution to the Mayor of Chicago?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 4:16 pm:
===Why should someone in Springfield have the right to make a contribution to the Mayor of Chicago?===
You don’t get out much, do you?
We’re all in the same state. Actions taken by Chicago mayors or legislators can impact the rest of the state.
- Steve Brown - Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 7:46 am:
Rich:
carol’s email was addressed to PIOs, not the actual office holders. I was left with the impression this was an essay question, not true/false.
The Speaker’s full response went something like this:
” The Joint Committee on Government Reform has heard from the advocates of contribution limits.
For the most part, I did not see them make a connection between contributions to legislators and the abuses committed by the last two occupants of the governor’s office.
It seems limits could spur a growth in the number of wealthy candidates. This would harm the divesity of the legislature.
Furthermore a candidate forced to limit contributions would be hard pressed to defend themselves against a smear campaign from an unregulated group.
I will continue to listen to these proposals to see if these shortcomings and other concerns can be addressed.
Meanwhile I expect there will be changes in reporting contributions, more purchasing visibility and the vast clean-up of the pension systems.”
Have a great day
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 8:16 am:
What’s with Carol Marin and the Sun-Times copyeditors? Secretary of State Lisa Madigan? House Speaker Tom Cross?
What kind of credibility do you have when you’re that sloppy?
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 8:48 am:
“Rod Blagojevich was such a freak of nature…”
Really? Then how did we end up with two freaks of nature, Ryan and Blagojevich?
Blagojevich was not a solo act. While Democrats and a few Republicans across the state claim anmesia and are shredding confidential information tying them to Rod Blagojevich, the fact remains that Rod Blagojevich was not a freak of nature - he was the elected leader of the Illinois Democratic Party, elected and re-elected by the Democrats to hold the highest office in our state. Blaming Blagojevich as some kind of Hitleresque madman is a cover-up of a corrupted political system that still exists in Illinois.
OK - let’s not call it a “system”, if you don’t want to sound like a conspiracy freak - but at least admit that we have in place two political party apparatuses that are suppose to nominate the best people in Illinois for each elected office, and get those good people elected. However you wish to pretend that political parties exist for a reason, whatever reason they exist points to absolute failure regarding Illinois state government over the past decade.
As long as we allow our political parties to play stupid regarding their decisions, or allow them not to face the circumstances of their failures, we will be seeing future Ryans and Blagojevichs in our state offices.
We need real reform now!