* From the Tribune…
We’ve never believed that capping campaign contributions is an effective way to subtract money from politics. Candidates and their donors will always find the loopholes, even when they aren’t as obvious as the ones that were built into the last supposed reform bill. But we agree completely that putting caps on some groups but not on others makes things worse, not better.
Lawmakers are looking for a bone to toss the watchdogs — spending limits on leaders during primary races, maybe, or sewing up a few of the remaining loopholes in the disclosure rules. None of that would redeem this.
Watch for Madigan’s members to do as they’re told, though, and pass a plan that ties everyone’s hands except party leaders. Senate President John Cullerton can tell his troops to second it, and lawmakers will go home bragging that they’ve committed reform by passing the state’s first limits on campaign contributions.
Three things…
1) There can be no caps on uncoordinated independent expenditures by special interests, so the Trib is glossing over a problem there. In essence, if the Trib got its way everybody would be capped except the special interests. Also, the leaders would still be able to do uncoordinated independent expenditures.
I’m actually for this leadership cap, but I don’t think for a minute that it’ll solve anything. I just think that they oughtta do it, appease the screamers, and move on.
2) Will they really pass something this week? Part of the bill introduced by Madigan takes effect on January 1st of next year. That means a three-fifths vote will be required for passage.
That’s doubtful unless something is changed in the bill. Madigan apparently believes the legislation will benefit his members, despite the rages of editorial boards, because some of his targets have signed on as co-sponsors, including appointed North Shore Rep. Carol Sente, and, to a lesser extent, Southland Rep. Kevin McCarthy.
3) The “primary only” cap may be sparking a tiny bit of sunlight…
A revised legislative proposal that surfaced Friday would set limits on how much money parties and caucus leaders could contribute to candidates — but only for primary elections, not for general elections. The limits would be $100,000 for House candidates and $200,000 for Senate and statewide candidates.
“We’re not in love with it,” said Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. […]
“To my mind, it would be an inadequate bill,” Canary said. “It could also be a bill with other things that are meaningful.”
That doesn’t sound like a complete, outright rejection. We’ll see how it progresses. Dividing the reformers will be key to the leaders’ strategy here. If they can accomplish that, then maybe some Republicans will be forced on board.
Sen. Don Harmon is the lead negotiator for the Senate Democrats…
“Is there even a shred of evidence that a legislator is under the thumb of a legislative leader because of campaign spending? I don’t see it,” [Harmon] said. “I see members elected from competitive districts vote in the best interests of their district, which is often counter to the way the legislative leader votes.”
Actually, they’re usually told what’s in the best interests of their districts and then they vote accordingly.
* To the bigger problem…
A secret hiring database kept by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration is shedding new light on a controversy over lucrative pressure-washing jobs that went to a Cicero company owned by a major Blagojevich campaign contributor.
The contributor — William Mologousis, owner of Pressure Washing Systems Environmental Inc. — helped his brother-in-law Robert Millette land a $95,000-a-year job as the Illinois Department of Transportation’s finance and administration chief in 2003, the records show.
The next year, Mologousis’ company got a $522,000 contract to pressure-wash state bridges, building facades and expressway tunnels. The deal also included a “pilot program” under which his company, known as PWS, would clean and seal a half-dozen IDOT salt storage domes.
That pressure-washing contract set off a huge political firestorm in 2005. And now we know that Mologousis got a total of 11 people hired or promoted, 10 at IDOT alone.
* Related…
* Even if recall passes, ousting the governor won’t be easy
* Schoenburg: Holland wasn’t fazed by ‘transition’ talk
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 10:36 am:
Great story by Holland as related by Bernie S.
The fact that the Blago people were clueless as to the constitutional status of the Auditor General, and thought they could just roll him, would be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic.
Given how ignorant and reckless they were, the Blago Gang had a long run.
- Will County Woman - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 10:44 am:
Given his dubious history, I am very leery of reform efforts led by Pat Quinn. We all know how well his infamous cutback amendment turned out, and so does he these days. It has perhaps hurt him more than any other governor and is a painful reminder of the old adage “be careful what you wish for.”
I’m sure that the Quinn administration and campaign will try to make a big deal out of recall, and whatever reform comes out of the veto session, but if history is any indication Illinoisans won’t be better off because of anything that Quinn has done to reform Illinois government.
I understand that Quinn meant well on cutback, just as he means well in more recent times and today, but I just can’t trust that he knows what he is doing. I would prefer that he not be involved in the reform effort for fear that he’ll only do more harm than good (e.g., the Cutback Amendment). I agree with Spivak, technically Recall is not that great of a reform victory for voters.
- Will County Woman - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:01 am:
what is most troubling is that Quinn supporters, even the political ones who ought to know better, go on and on about him being a “reformer,” yet they fail to make the connection between his most notable reform (cutback) and the problems in Springfield with too much power in the hands of too few, and all of the problems that has caused.
we’ll, it could be worse. instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend like he isn’t at fault, quinn and his supporters could be saying he made a mistake in the early 1980s and now he is trying to fix it. lol.
whatever.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:06 am:
appease the screamers
Call it whatever you want, but doing nothing is not an option. This government has no credibility without change either from within or from outside. The horrible problems we have right now are compounded by the historic corruption that has occured over the past decade. This is a one-two punch that would flatten any decent government. We don’t have mobs with pitchforks, so instead of watching the physical violence of The Inquisition or The Russian Revolution, we have the silent revolution of Illinois voters closing their wallets.
Our politicians pretend that citizens don’t care. Citizens are not asleep. The are angry about the pass they gave to the incumbants in 2006 and are unbelievably cynical right now.
I believe that this government has to demonstrate some signs of life to voters. Appease the screamers. Do something!
- Mike Marvin - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:11 am:
Government has no business exercising authority over the wealth of Citizens. It is not the place of government to decide for us where we spend, or give, our money. This decision does not belong to politicians operating government, it belongs to individuals.
The responsibility to reject money “buying” an election rests with voters. No legislation can defer that responsibility.
Real reform and proper government action rests in forcing truthful information out of the shadows and into the public eye. Reform of substance consists of something relatively simple.
Candidates shall be required, concerning their campaigns, to account for every dollar coming in and every dollar going out. An ongoing list, updated at least every week, of all donations and who they come from, combined with another list of everything they spend that money on is all that is needed. Accounts receivable/accounts payable.
Government is not to decide for us, but it can be a employed to force truthful information out in the open so that voters can employ that information in making their own decisions.
Open and transparent government, what a novel idea. So why isn’t this the solution being embraced? Government itself doesn’t do this, as it pertains to it’s own operations, so how could they even try and demand candidates do so?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:24 am:
===It is not the place of government to decide for us where we spend, or give, our money.===
So, in other words, you’re against all taxation whatsoever.
lol
- Mike Marvin - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:32 am:
Why put words in my mouth and then laugh at them?
You say “other words” because they are exactly that - other words.
Set up strawmen much, Rich?
Last time I checked, we weren’t talking about taxation. Such is the tools of those who obfuscate. We are talking about money that has zero to do with taxation. Right? Care to try again, and like maybe actually address the solution I put forward in it’s context?
You see, taxing money away from the Citizens and deciding where that money is spent is one thing, but deciding where what remains after that taxation, something know as Citizen’s wealth, is something altogether different. Wouldn’t you agree? I would look forward to you explaining how there isn’t a difference if you believe that to be the case.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:33 am:
[“Is there even a shred of evidence that a legislator is under the thumb of a legislative leader because of campaign spending? I don’t see it,” [Harmon] said. “I see members elected from competitive districts vote in the best interests of their district, which is often counter to the way the legislative leader votes.”]
Man it’s not even Thursday afternoon yet, but Don Harmon; who you crapping?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:35 am:
Sorry, but when you say “It is not the place of government to decide for us where we spend, or give, our money,” I can only take that to mean one thing.
If it’s not the place of gvt to decide where to spend your money then you’re against taxation. Where is the straw man there?
- Chicago Cynic - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:36 am:
Rich,
I had the exact same reaction to that ridiculous statement.
BTW, I love Don, but that’s just a ridiculous statement on his part. We all know how this game is played, particularly in the House. To suggest that getting elected with money provided largely by the Speaker will have no impact on legislators is just ridiculous on its face.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:39 am:
===You see, taxing money away from the Citizens and deciding where that money is spent is one thing, but deciding where what remains after that taxation, something know as Citizen’s wealth, is something altogether different. Wouldn’t you agree?===
No, I wouldn’t. Not totally, anyway. Try thinking that extremist statement through again, please.
- Mike Marvin - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:43 am:
Extremist? Hardly, context was provided. ‘Tis you who took it as extremist and supported it supposedly being that way by adding words that were not present.
Ok, so you don’t agree totally. In what ways do you disagree?
- Mike Marvin - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:49 am:
If I have in my possession 100 dollars and it is deemed that 50 of those dollars are to be taxed away, I am left with 50 dollars. That money belongs to me. I am respectfully ask you if government has authority over that remaining 50 dollars or if that authority belongs to me because I am it’s owner and I am to be secure in my possessions.
It is my position that it does belong to me to spend or give as I see fit. Do you disagree with that position?
- Chicago Cynic - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:53 am:
So Mike I assume that means you’d like to do away with all tax deductions like the home mortgage deduction, the medical expense deduction, the deduction for dependents, etc? Because those deductions are government telling you what you should do with your money.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:57 am:
Mike Marvin,
You should probaby move along now. Rich isn’t going to debate you, that’s not what he does. Some of the rest of us might, but it’s Monday and we’re tired today.
Take your $50 and move along please.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:59 am:
===Do you disagree with that position? ===
Yes. Think about it. Could you use that money to pay an assassin? Could you use it to import a car that’s unsafe on the roads? Could you use it to buy heroin? Could you use it to bribe public officials? Could you use it to buy spoiled meat that you then sold to unwary customers? Could you use it to contribute more than $2500 to federal candidates?
You’re not in a college bull session here. Grow up.
- Anonymous45 - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:04 pm:
Umm, WCW: Pat is willing to sign legislation that will allow for his own recall by the voters…I see this as putting your $ where your pen/mouth is…but I guess you won’t take this as a sign of Pat’s willingness to be scrutinized by the voters cuz you are so off the deep end…
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:10 pm:
Clean your glasses, Don. We all see it.
- Speaking at Will - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:15 pm:
== Take your $50 and move along please. ==
That should be on a T shirt! LOL
- Will County Woman - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 1:01 pm:
@ Anonymous45
ok, so recall could be used against pat quinn. well why not? his other reforms have been used against him, so this would just be him being consistent and staying true to form.
let’s face it…reforms have had a way of backfiring on quinn. obviously that is true in the case of the cutback amendment, but it also true of some more recent reforms he has pushed. for example, I’m guessing that he now probably wishes he hadn’t pushed so hard to get Madigan, as party chair, to agree to not financially and politically support his prefered candidate for the 2010 governor’s race. Remember that? That was back when Quinn thought Lisa Madigan would run against him for goervnor. ooops.
our republican friends describe that as one of Quinn’s most feckless moments as governor, by the way. http://www.friendsofblago.com/int-quinn.htm
So, recall might look and sound good in theory, but look at the source of it (e.g. who pushed it) and then think about his history with respect to reform. Sure, recall has its merits, but given that Quinn was behind it, it probably doesn’t bode too well for Illinoisians in the greater scheme of things/long run. that’s all I’m sayin.’
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:02 pm:
Harmon with a howler. He must have double-clutched right after he said it.
Senator, don’t let your ambition get in the way of your reputation. It ain’t worth it.
- Bill - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:43 pm:
If Harmon doesn’t see it he’s got his eyes closed.
- LoopLady - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 4:02 pm:
WCW: You can’t have it both ways…are you saying that would you rather have more legislators than fewer? Do more legislators make better government?
OK, I’m askin’: How much are you getting for your posts from Hynes’ campaign?
- Anonymous45 - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 4:05 pm:
Constituents in districts vote for or against your record, the Leaders do not…Harmon has a valid point…if you vote out of sync with your constituents, they remember it at the voting booth…
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 5:04 pm:
Government has no business exercising authority over the wealth of Citizens.
Yes it has. That is it exists.
- Bobs yer - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 9:40 pm:
From the DOA: “[Governments] derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
These petty ante ‘reforms’ mean little or nothing. The ‘governed’ (i.e. us) passed up the chance for reform when we overwhelmingly rejected a con-con.
- Bobs yer - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 9:45 pm:
oops, reform is DOA, I meant DOI (declaration of independence). also misquoted, “…for this purpose (protection of the rights of man, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) governments are created, and they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
great philosophy of government. great idea too: “JUST powers”. The governed have to give a damn first, of course. Thus, bread and circuses to keep them (us) occupied.
- Bobs yer - Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 10:02 pm:
Alright, it was driving my nuts. I knew I’d paraphrased. Here’s the real deal:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Good stuff, what? Have you ‘consented’ to this system?