24 Comments - dave - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:41 am: I am not really sure how the state can not allow Blago to make money. I don’t see it holding up in court. - VanillaMan - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:41 am: Yes it is. Rod Blagojevich didn’t work a single day in office without considering ways to rip us off. No work - no pay. - Bill - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:46 am: No it is punitive legislation that violates so many articles and amendments to both constitutions that I won’t bother to list any. Besides, his book deal, if there really is one, was made and hopefully paid before he even goes to trial. - montrose - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:47 am: Emotionally, I like it, but I am with dave in wondering how such a law would hold up in court. On what constitutional grounds would the state have the right to seize the money? I have no doubt it feels good to vote yes on legislation like this, but, at the end of the day, it seems to be over stepping. - train111 - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:52 am: Its nothing but a political feel-good CYA move by the Senate panel. Apply the rules evenly–to everybody–even those that don’t get caught. Then we’ll talk. train111 - Macbeth - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:52 am: I don’t know the specifics here, but isn’t this much like the law that prohibits inmates from making money from book deals? If the guy is convicted — and if he hasn’t yet served his time — I don’t see a problem with this. Once he serves his time, then, yes, he ought to be allowed to make — and keep — money. The way I see it is that I lost a lot of money because of Blagojevich’s ineptitude and alleged turpitude. As a taxpayer, Blagojevich took money directly out of my pocket in order to fund or better his wacky schemes. So enough is enough. I fully support stuff like this for convicted felons. - Macbeth - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:55 am: Grammar police alert. Oops: I mean: “As a taxpayer, I feel that Blagojevich took money directly out of my pocket in order to fund or better his wacky schemes. So enough is enough.” - How Ironic - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:05 am: About the only way I see it working is to prohit his ability to earn on work done about his time as a state official. (IE a tell all book about being Gov). Otherwise, you can’t really take away someones ability to earn a living. I don’t like the guy, but the GA already took away his ability to hold any public office. He is going to prision, and this just seems like piling on. Perhaps they could write the law that would make the procees have to pay for his legal defense. - wndycty - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:18 am: Nope its not fair, its petty and vindictive. As of now Rod has not been convicted of anything and even if he were, he should only be banned from benefiting from making money off of crimes he has been convicted of. While his notoriety is due to his arrest, indictment and crazy behavior, as a politician who has served at multiple levels it fair to believe that there would be able to make a living with paid media appearances and on the speaking circuit even if he wasn’t embroiled in this current legal crisis. He was impeached, indicted and faces a long stint in prison if convicted, I am not too sure why that isn’t enough for the folks down in the State House. Legislation like this is a waste of time. - Obamarama - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:19 am: Isn’t there a law that says, something to the effect of, you cannot profit from an illegal activity? If so, wouldn’t that already apply to RRB’s situation in the sense that his book/movie/broadway musical deal would be an account of his (illegal) activites in office? - Obamarama - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:21 am: Sorry Rich, I guess I didn’t answer the question. Yes I believe it is fair in the sense that the state should be able to recoup some of the damages caused by RRB. No, I don’t think it is reasonable because I cannot see this piece of legislation holding up in court. - Plutocrat03 - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:21 am: As long as it is is like some of the laws already on the book which prevent a criminal from developing revenue from the notoriety of the crime committed, that would be OK - Captain Flume - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:26 am: Much as I think any further profit he might make from his term as a “public servant” is particularly odious, he is now a private citizen. If there is not a general law that prohibits convicted felons from profiting from their misdeeds through publications and other media exposure, then there should not be a special law for public officials. And if there is a general law to cover these kinds of media deals, it should apply to private citizens and public officials alike. Maybe there should be a law prohibiting any media from paying a convicted felon for such exposure. - Little Egypt - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:34 am: At the speed with which the Illinois legislature works, Blago’s book, as well as a sequel, will be written, printed, and sold before our lawmakers can pass a law saying he cannot profit from a book deal. Whatever Blago makes from his book won’t last long. He spends money like a drunken sailor (pun intended). - Boscobud - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:36 am: I bet he gets paid cash and opens a overseas account. I don’t think it is fair. - lake county democrat - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:37 am: “We’re all Dorothy Tillmans now” - state legislators. Go censor some books at the library while you’re at folks. - wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:41 am: In Rod’s case, it’s no worries for him, because the chump change he’s REALLY going to make for his 15 minutes of infamy will be long spent on hair-care products before he even goes to trial. Bill, this is a Son of “Son of Sam Law” and though the original was tossed by the Supremes, New York and other states have passed modified versions that are holding up. You lose a lot when you’re convicted of a felony — best to not chance it. The law’s certainly fair and reasonable, and if it passes the guidelines put down by the Supremes when they tossed the first one, I’m all for it. Exercise your 1st Amendment Right all you want — you just won’t profit from it. - wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:53 am: Lake, no one’s taking away his 1st Amendment Right — he just can’t make money off of it after he’s convicted and until he’s served his penalty. You can put convicted felons in prison for their crimes — certainly you can keep them from profiting from them while they do their sentence. - Beans - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 12:34 pm: Gotta love the Southwest Side “Laski exemption”… – “have already served out their sentence” - JAX22 - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 12:40 pm: Hmm, sounds more like some in Springfield are a little nervous about what may come out. - Marianne North - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 1:10 pm: Rod misspent taxpayers money and he should pay it back. The money should be set aside in a fund with Rod allowed to withdraw a percentage for personal needs. - DCM - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 3:08 pm: I gotta say I feel bad for the kids. Both of their parents are going end up in prison at some point. Maybe the State should hold that money in a trust fund account for the girls. - HoosierDaddy - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 4:38 pm: A better bet would seem to be to get the Court to order restitution of a couple of billion from any profits he makes. That would help everybody… the state, the people, Blago, his ego… - Captain America - Friday, May 8, 09 @ 9:37 am: I think Blago is entitlted to make money any legal way he can. I think the legislative effort is misguided and probably unconstitutional. Blago’s impeachment, his indictment, staggering legal bills, inevitable conviction, and lengthy incarceration will suffice as punishment. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.