* Nobody ever has a corner on “The Truth.” Ever. That’s one reason why I always try to be honestly skeptical of reformers and their proposals. Just because somebody is appointed to a blue ribbon commission or finds financial backing to start a good government group does not automatically mean everything they say or propose should be believed or followed.

I’m also a natural contrarian and not easily impressed, so when everybody else is falling all over themselves to breathlessly praise this or that idea from this or that reformer, my inclination is to look at things much more closely and examine it like anything else that pops up in Springfield.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at the governor’s independent reform commission report. You can download the full report by clicking here.

* The commission’s idea to require the online reporting of most campaign contributions within a few days is darned good. It’ll give us a road map of contributions during spring session, which we can compare to the progress of legislation. The listing of state subcontractors is also hugely important. And both seem to have broad support, even from Speaker Madigan. Here’s his spokesman…

“A lot of people think that more instantaneous disclosure, more visibility about contracting, all those kinds of things can be more powerful tools to discourage government corruption.”

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.

* The independent procurement office is an interesting idea. The proposal would concentrate most purchasing power in the hands of a small group of folks, headed by an Executive Procurement Officer, appointed for five-year terms and confirmed by a super-majority of the Senate. I could be for that. Here’s a quick summary…

* Make the procurement officials part of an independent arm of government to shield them from political pressure.
* Establish an independent contract monitor to review contracts and expose problematic deals.
* Scale back exemptions to the procurement code.
* Apply the procurement code to legislative, judicial and such quasi-governmental bodies as the Illinois Finance Authority.
* Subject no-bid and emergency contracts to tighter scrutiny and limitations.
* Disclose subcontractors, lobbyists and agents representing clients.
* Document any contact between vendors or their agents and procurement staff.
* Post all procurement information online.

…Adding… There can be unintended consequences, of course. Check out today’s news for one example…

Cook County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado (D-Chicago) today called on the independent board running the county’s massive public health-care system to scuttle its effort to save money by changing the way medical supplies are purchased.

He was flanked by dozens of minority and women business owners who said they would lose their county business if the change goes through. They sell millions of dollars worth of supplies each year to the system.

* The campaign contribution caps are, of course, controversial. Steve Chapman makes a good point against them…

…under the 1st Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled, contributions may be limited but independent expenditures may not. If an asphalt contractor wants to give $100,000 to an incumbent governor’s campaign, the state can forbid it. But not if he wants to spend $100,000 buying ads praising the governor or attacking his opponent. I’m willing to bet that if a candidate will sell favors in exchange for contributions, he will sell favors in exchange for independent expenditures on his behalf.

Patrick Collins disagrees…

“The fact of the matter is, if you’re giving $25,000 at a crack to a public official, you’re expecting something in return,” said Patrick Collins, chairman of the Illinois Reform Commission. “That’s a corrupting influence.”

Actually, you’d be surprised at the number of people who give ten bucks who then think they somehow own those candidates.

My problem would be making the caps too low, as Senate GOP Leader Christine Radogno has said…

Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno of Lemont said the campaign limits should be higher but added that the real issue is whether “Democratic leadership in this state allow them to be brought up for a vote.” But House Republican leader Tom Cross of Oswego raised concerns about limits, saying lawmakers need to “find some happy medium.” […]

“I’ve never seen a limit that’s going to make a crooked person honest,” Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said.

A higher cap would help people ward off challenges from rich candidates and help them raise more money from friends and family to challenge entrenched incumbents.

* Banning contributions from lobbyists may or may not accomplish anything. Their clients would still be able to contribute, for instance.

* My biggest objection to these ideas is that the commission didn’t bother to put them into bill form. How can you truly analyze a proposal that doesn’t actually exist?

* Anyway, what do you make of all this? Here are some related stories, columns and editorials for you to peruse…

* Download the full commission report by clicking here

* Head of state’s reform commission uses ‘Daily Show’ clip to unveil plan

* ‘Now or never’ on state ethics reform

* If not now, when?

* Demand legislators vote for real reforms

* Illinois corruption: New proposals aim to clean up state government

* Reform commission offers blueprint for change

* Sweeping campaign funding, contracting reforms urged in Illinois

* Illinois reform panel wants campaign contributions capped

* Listen up, Springfield

* Shed cynicism and demand change

* Open meetings not for Illinois lawmakers