|
Another process rant
Monday, Mar 22, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller * I’m old enough to remember when the state passed the Gift Ban Act. Lobbyists could no longer buy gifts for legislators, or take them out for expensive dinners. The people who grumbled most about that law belonged to a handful of legislative mooches - members who existed mainly to mooch goodies off of lobbyists. Most lobbyists I knew (and since they’re almost all subscribers I know most of them) actually favored the law. Many even wanted to go further. A ban on all meals and drinks, for instance, would mean they could go home to their families a whole lot earlier and avoid being strong-armed by politicians who didn’t want to pay their own freight. The above may sound counter-intuitive, even unbelievable, but most political reporting and punditry is cartoon-based. It’s cynical stuff and cynicism in most cases is just a cover for intellectual laziness (Rod Blagojevich excepted, of course). People just aren’t nearly as bad as they are portrayed. Yes, they’re human, yes, there are some bad ones out there, but I don’t think I’ll ever get over my reaction when I first began covering the Statehouse. I was so surprised at how meticulously ethical the vast majority of the lobbyists were. That’s a big reason why I was glad to see David Kelm’s op-ed piece the other day. Kelm was writing about the ridiculous new fee imposed on lobbyists that has been ruled unconstitutional by a judge…
Again, I’m not so naive as to think that all lobbyists are the greatest people on Earth. If they were, we wouldn’t need reforms. But I’m also clear-headed enough to not always let cynicism rule.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- George - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 12:42 pm:
I agree, Rich.
Lobbyists are the good guys. The legislators are the bad guys.
- Some Guy - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 12:53 pm:
So where does ATT fit into that assessment?
- Ray del Camino - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 12:56 pm:
You’re right, Rich. When I took student groups to DC, I always had them meet with at least one lobbyist friend of mine. They always gave the clearest explanation of how the process works, and they always enlightened the students more than the Members or staffers did. The students came away marveling that the lobbyists did not have horns and a tail, but were advocating on behalf of their clients with legitimate policy interests. A few bad apples always hurt the image of the large majority.
- Vote Quimby! - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 12:57 pm:
Is that why they are known as “lobsters,” when they used to be able to buy fine dinners, or is it just the logical phonetic association?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 12:59 pm:
VQ, it’s the latter.
- grand old partisan - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:02 pm:
Well put, Rich (and David). When I was a “lobbyist,” I always hated the term. It should be “petitioner,” because that’s what a lobbyist does - petition the government on behalf of those affected by its decisions. And it should be noted that “petitioning” is protected by the same amendment in the Bill of Rights that covers “the press.”
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:04 pm:
By the way, the worst legislative mooches are now all gone. Thank goodness.
- Red Ranger - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:04 pm:
Great point Rich. “The people” and “the children” and “the elderly” are all represented by lobbyists in Springfield, DC and all other places of government.
As an aside, what a great QOTD “What is the best lobbyist-legislator/staffer mooching story you have been a part of in IL?”
- Will - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:18 pm:
The existence of lobbyists isn’t the problem. It’s that some lobbyists can promise a $100,000 campaign contribution in exchange for killing a bill. Of course, those lobbyists also work for groups who can buy a lot of ad space in newspapers or TV, which is an issue we never hear about in the press.
- jim - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:32 pm:
Yeah, we need more guys like Al Ronan/en in government. He represents the best of America.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:34 pm:
Dude, if you don’t even know how to spell his name, I’m not sure you’re all that qualified to rate him. Just sayin…
But, again, for the slow of mind, note that I said not everybody was wonderful all the time.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:35 pm:
===It’s that some lobbyists can promise a $100,000 campaign contribution in exchange for killing a bill.===
And you’ve seen that actually happen when?
- siriusly - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 1:50 pm:
Thank you for this piece Rich, and congratulations to Dave Kelm of the SJR also. Lobbyists are too often vilified by politicans, op/ed writers and voters alike. Many lobbyists are there protecting programs and values that large segments of our citizenry care about, prorgrams that need advocates because frankly the legislators simply cannot pay attention to every single issue.
Perhaps Will, you meant to refer to special interest groups instead? For example, a large labor organization that makes huge contributions during elections can certainly kill bills simply by saying they oppose. But there are only a handful of those organizations. They are different from lobbyists.
There are hundreds of really good lobbyists who are honest and have integrity. I appreciate your item today, and the recognition that we’re valuable too.
- Will - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:30 pm:
Rich, have you been following SB3107?
- siriusly - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 2:44 pm:
Am I a sucker or what. Longwall coalmining regulations! Wow!
How, in any way shape or form, does that bill relate to this topic?
Why, would this blog’s readers care? Is there some political intrigue here you’re privy to? Then share plesae. If not. zzzzzz.
- Fan of the Game - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 3:26 pm:
Lobbyists–like members of the GA–represent a constituency. Most do their jobs very well and very ethically. A few bad apples spoil it for everyone–sort of like politicians.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 6:15 pm:
=== The existence of lobbyists isn’t the problem. It’s that some lobbyists can promise a $100,000 campaign contribution in exchange for killing a bill. ===
No, the problem is that elections are largely privately financed, not publicly financed.
As long as money is changing hands, someone somewhere is going to be willing to kill a bill for $100…you can keep the extra zeroes.
But even in Illinois, the Wild West of campaign finance laws, that kind of shakedown is the rumored exception and certainly NOT the rule.
- CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 6:42 pm:
“By the way, the worst legislative mooches are now all gone. Thank goodness. …”
Capt Fax did you bump your head? Shall I bring a cold cloth?
- northernwatersports - Monday, Mar 22, 10 @ 6:45 pm:
This article should be a lesson plan for every aspiring Civics teacher in the State! Oh, do we still teach civics/citizenship/the Constitution in Illinois schools?
No wonder that the public at large has forgotten some of the basic principles of governance and civility.