23 Comments - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 9:52 am: Considering the bang-up job The Adams Family did representing former State Rep. Patricia Bailey, I couldn’t wish for a better legal team for Rod. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 10:00 am: “A lot of this legislative stuff is inside baseball,” Collins said. …and you are just figuring this out now? What is the matter with you? - Say WHAT? - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 10:01 am: Wait a dog-gone minute! Wasn’t it argued that the Adams Family wasn’t defending Blago in his criminal trial? Didn’t Adam Jr. operate as a go between when certain person’s were going after the Senate seat now occupied by Burris? Hmmmmm? - VanillaMan - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 10:05 am: Two more years of Blagojevich in the news? Two more years of news about corruption in our government? Couple this with the nightmare our economy is becoming under Obama, and the GOP will discover the Lazarus Effect, even in Illinois. - Bill - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 10:09 am: The “real culprit”?? I don’t see anything better this session than last in terms of budget, ethics reform, school funding, medicaid or anything else.Everything seems worse to me. In fact, I’m seeing some Blagojevich proposals being talked about now by others. Lottery, video gambling in bars, etc.. Next thing you know, Quinn, Filan, Ostrow will suggest the GRT. The real culprits are still in office and Miller is right. One of them will probably bury all of us. It is the same old bull only more so with a giant tax increase to go with it. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 10:16 am: === Welcome to my world, Mr. Collins. === LOL, Miller. Welcome to my world too. I couldn’t help laugh at Collin’s defense, or lack thereof, of the Reform Commission and their recommendations. While Collins offered no defense whatsoever of the substance of their recommendations, he did tout the expertise of the panel members. I was especially enthralled by the resumes of the former and current elected officials, who’s experience apparently gives them insight into the need for campaign finance reform: Sheila Simon: who lost her bid for Mayor of Carbondale due to self-imposed contribution limits. Anita Alvarez: who, as a political outsider, was only able to finance her campaign thanks to her family’s independent wealth. Duane Noland: whose State Senate campaigns were largely financed by direct contributions from corporations. This line from Pat Collins also jumped out: “We had the freedom to scour the country to examine best practices, and we did not bring a knee-jerk “that will never fly in Illinois” mentality to the process. While we understand that many folks cannot get past what Illinois conventional wisdom deems “doable” in a typical political year, such a response really misses the point: This is not, and cannot be, a typical year.” Why? Because behind closed doors, most reformers believe that only full public financing of all elections will ever end fundraising’s undo influence on who gets elected, policy-making by the General Assembly, and pay-to-play by future administrations. Simply put: the only way to get rid of the rats is to take away ALL the cheese. But - even though full public financing is reformers’ ultimate goal, and even though its been recently instituted in Connecticut with resounding success, the Reform Commission isn’t pushing it. Why? Because in a year of record budget deficits, public financing of all elections just doesn’t seem “doable.” Now, some will say that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. But I argue that passing contribution caps and pretending that we’ve solved the problem on kicks the can down the road, allowing low-level (and ultimately more damaging) corruption to continue to fester unnoticed until the next conviction of the next governor focuses the public’s attention on the problem once again. Quinn and the Reform Commission should be arguing that the small cost of public financing is NOTHING compared to the estimated $500 million “Corruption Tax” we’d be repealing, but instead they are wasting a rare opportunity to fix this problem once-and-for-all, and that’s a shame. - wordslinger - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 10:24 am: I get around a little bit — is it true “momentum has never been greater to put in place comprehensive changes in how politics and government operate in scandal-plagued Illinois.”? I don’t see it. No one I run across talks about reforming state government. There is some interest in Blago as a sideshow freak, and certainly anger over a lot of things, mostly the economy. I think for most, Illinois government is far behind national and local politics in interest and attention. - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 10:44 am: Wordslinger, you raise a good question. Personally, I’ll be surprised if anything substantive and meaningful passes fully this year. I’m assuming it will require an election year to make it happen - like Emil and the pay raises. - anonymous - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 10:52 am: Is Collins originally from IL? LOL, he is just getting this is an insiders game? Collins may want to reach out to some academicians like Green or Redfield who can give him a history on IL politics. YDD, I could not agree more. There are, of course, some issues to be dealt with public financing so as not to allow only the wealthy to run but even with low caps, people/corporations/PACS still figure a way around. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 10:59 am: ===Sheila Simon: who lost her bid for Mayor of Carbondale due to self-imposed contribution limits.=== That would make her an expert, however. She’s also an expert in running as a reformer and being bashed by the local media as a Democratic Machine tool, even though her contributions were capped at $50 and her opponent was taking tons of help from the state GOP. The editorial boards screaming loudest these days for reform are the same ones who dumped on just about every reformer candidate we’ve ever had. Just ask Glenn Poshard about the Chicago Tribune, for example. This is about more than just legislation. It’s about changing attitudes. And the Trib and the Southern Illinoisan have had horrible attitudes. I feel another column coming on… - VanillaMan - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 11:19 am: I hate writing this, because I don’t want to believe it. It seems to me that the General Assembly is too comfortable with how they do things now, to change anything. They just don’t see how reforms or ethics can help them keep their elected seats. They don’t feel enough pressure to believe they are taking a risk by not doing something. And why should they? Who is going to lose re-election as a consequence? Over the past ten years they have weathered many a self-inflicted crisis, yet cruise to re-election. Why work when not working works so well for them? They have been re-elected after they passed budget plans that had no basis in reality. They passed bills that paid off their constituents even though they knew there was no money available to pay for the bills. They have sloughed off every responsibility onto Blagojevich, and now onto Quinn, and voters didn’t spank any of them at the polls. So why do anything if it could possibly mean risking what is currently risk-free? Every voter has been gerrymandered into predictable biannual election results. Every taxpayer has been ignored. Businesses have moved out if they didn’t get a state government pay-off somehow. Illinois citizens don’t care, so neither does the General Assembly. Blagojevich didn’t cause Illinois’ paralysis. He was just the poster child for it. The party in power likes things the way they are, and when they have to elect a known criminal to Illinois’ highest office, they did. Madigan just kept the cash away from the Klepto Kid until he imploded. Today, with our situation quite dire, we really need leadership, but Illinois is leaderless. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 11:34 am: ===Couple this with the nightmare our economy is becoming under Obama,=== Now VanillaMan, We all know that you’re a fabulous writer, but adding gratuitous jabs at Obama, especially when they are off-point and ridiculously partisan, doesn’t help your credibility. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 11:36 am: === There are, of course, some issues to be dealt with public financing so as not to allow only the wealthy to run === Actually, Anon, public financing not only means that you don’t have to be a gazillionaire to run. It also means that political parties will no longer limit their candidate recruitment to self-funders who are either millionaires or have a built-in political fundraising base (e.g. current officeholders). Dan Kotowski faced a grueling primary battle against a fella who was only a viable candidate because he could write big checks to his own campaign. Let’s remember, it was Rod’s prolific fundraising ability that established him as the “frontrunner” in the Democratic primary in the eyes of the media and the political elite, which became a self-fulfilling prophesy once the unions got on board. The GOP is plagued by the same problem. Lots of great potential statewide candidates, but even among current officeholders, none have the ability to raise $10 million. And of course, money being the mother’s milk of privately-financed campaigns, I doubt that the cash-strapped southern half of the state will ever produce a viable statewide candidate again, for either party. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 11:49 am: Obama is the president, and is Illinois’ favorite son. As our economy sours, which it is doing and will continue to do, as the White House has admitted it will do, our favorite son’s political pull will lessen, impacting voters in Illinois. Obama is Illinoian. He is relevant. Mentioning his political pull in this state is relevant. As his term continues, he will experience what every president has experienced. Pointing this out and writing about the possible impact this will have statewide is appropriate in this context, in my opinion. - wordslinger - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 12:47 pm: –Couple this with the nightmare our economy is becoming under Obama, and the GOP will discover the Lazarus Effect, even in Illinois.– Only if people forget when things started going south, which was the fourth quarter of 2008, when GDP shrank 6.3%. Or, if people forget that in 2008 the DJIA lost 34% of its value, the largest loss since 1931. Or, if people forget that in 2008 Lehman Bros. and AIG…. and on and on and on. Economists debate in months and years how long it takes for major changes in fiscal policy to impact the economy. Obama must be something else — apparently his actions have a retroactive effect. If only he could be persuaded to use that magic for good! - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 12:51 pm: Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush spent 12 years blaming Jimmy Carter. It worked for almost 11. I don’t think that lesson is lost on BHO. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 12:54 pm: And, now, let’s move on… - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 1:27 pm: === She’s also an expert in running as a reformer and being bashed by the local media as a Democratic Machine tool, even though her contributions were capped at $50 and her opponent was taking tons of help from the state GOP. === Some would argue that if not for campaign contribution limits, she might have been able to overcome the media bashing with her own advertising. Maybe all of this stumping by editorial boards in favor of contribution caps is just an attempt to make editorial boards relevant again? - Rep. John Fritchey - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 1:38 pm: Hey Rich, Let me know if you want some assistance with that column - Reddbyrd - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 3:42 pm: Editorial Boards will only become relevant if newspapers gain market share…the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction. Meanwhile candidates will turn to developing their own content to get out a message — an increasingly expensive process that needs to be funded since the media cannot be counted on to really cover campaigns. Especially down ballot reaces. BTW, I don’t really count poll stories and final week roundups as coverage. - Ghost - Tuesday, May 12, 09 @ 3:43 pm: Here is my big problem with the IRC, lack of research and support. Instead of talking about who they are, show me real world examples of these reforms in practice and how they will fix real problems. The problem is we seem to be operating under the assumption that change = reform. DOing something differently then we do now is not the same as reforming it or doing it better. In fact, change for the sake of change itself can create even greater problems. the whole thing looks like a bunch of folks who made up hypothetical solutions for the purpose of makijng up solutions. Very little hard data has been presented to support the propsoals as being actual reform v change. - Moron - Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 8:02 am: “Hey Rich, Let me know if you want some assistance with that column” Hmm, I thought I noticed a certain correspondence between John’s talking points on Chicago Tonight and Rich’s rhetoric on CF. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 10:10 am: ===I thought I noticed a certain correspondence between John’s talking points on Chicago Tonight and Rich’s rhetoric on CF.=== Once again, moronic over-read of what I wrote. I didn’t see his appearance on that program and didn’t talk to him, but, of course, you have to make a stupid inference. Congrats. You’re a moron. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.