29 Comments - too far - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:01 pm: too far - Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:02 pm: IMO, Shaw and the BGA should have dialed it back. Drawing attention to Berrios shortcomings seems within the BGA’s mission. Making it sound like Claypool is too virtuous to ever make a mistake or get called to the dark side makes Shaw and the BGA seem naive. Many politicians start as reformers and join the system. The BGA exists as a watchdog, not a religious organization to testify to the content of a politician’s soul. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:03 pm: I think an organization like the BGA is in a tough spot on the partisan issue, so I would give them a lot more latitude than other nonprofits might receive. As we know, it is difficult to separate government from elections. If we truly are to have better government, we need to elect better candidates. I think Shaw is appropriately close to the line, but well within the confines of what should be kosher for this particular nonprofit. And good for Shaw and the BGA for speaking up about this. We need more attention on these obscure but important government offices. - well - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:05 pm: I think Shaw is well within the BGA’s principles here. If the BGA can’t question elected officials and their practices, how it is suppose to achieve better government? - Patrick - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:07 pm: I think pointing out conflicts of interest is absolutely appropriate. If he is correct, it perfectly illustrates the personality problems behind our state’s problems. Not sure how I feel about him endorsing a candidate after he says they don’t do that, however. Sure, they’re a private entity entitled to endorse candidates if they so choose, but making exceptions is exactly the type of thing that your opponents will jump on to discredit your organization. It may be a small issue, but it can be made into a foothold for other issues. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:08 pm: I’m inclined to go with more debate. There’s probably a non-profits tax issue involved, like with the churches, but it’s probably not worth bothering with. Ya gotta have FAITH? Maybe Claypool should go with a George Michael like campaign theme. Beats “Run, Forrest, Run.” - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:15 pm: There was no reason for him to use names. He could have described each candidate without using their names. Once he used names, he overstep his mission statement. - Brennan - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:17 pm: The Democrats can always ask Ed Burke for another ordinance targeting Andy Shaw’s private property. Some of them might owe Ed a favor. - Vote Quimby! - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:18 pm: ==And if he succeeds, voters will have a real choice.== Is it up to BGA to decide a three-way race is not a “real” choice? I read the entire op-ed, and it is an endorsement… - shore - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:24 pm: it does not smell right. and I am a republican. - John Bambenek - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:29 pm: To be strictly technical… you’re not partisan if you are backing a candidate in a non-partisan race… by definition in fact. - siriusly - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:42 pm: Yes, I think Shaw has been overstepping the boundaries of legitimacy since day one with the BGA. Houlihan good - all others bad. Really? I think that there have been some honest disagreements on tax policy and that Houlihan has helped and hired some of his friends and political allies. He’s a politician after all, he’s not a saint. Andy Shaw was so insistent on putting the legislature and the Speaker in the cross hairs of the “reform” commission last year, despite the fact that they were the ones who stopped and removed Blagojevich. I saw him speak at the City Club of Chicago last year, I asked him why the focus on the legislature when the biggest problem we’ve had in Illinois the past 10 years has been with our governors. He started off by saying “yes, you’re right” and then launched into another anti-Madigan tirade. He also insisted over and over that the BGA is an investigator - not a lobbying organization, but talked about the reform commission and what laws they want changed. I’m not saying he’s totally wrong with the questions he raises, but I do think that he has lost his credibility and objectivity completely. I’m also somewhat of a Forrest Claypool cynic. I did like him and helped him in the past, but. If this was the office you wanted - why didn’t you run against Berrios in the primary? I thought you were retiring from politics? Yes, of course he’s free to do what he feels is right - it just smells a little arrogant to me. Lastly, it’s a great and easy issue for Shaw and the Tribune to use to bash Madigan about - because they blindly hate the man even though they aren’t complaining about his leadership as Speaker. Even if it is tilting at windmills. - matt - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:43 pm: I think its difficult to draw conclusions from one “endorsement”. Has the BGA done this before? Will this happen more often? If not, this may just be an extraordinary situation, in which case it is problematic to draw larger conclusions about the legitimacy of the organization or otherwise based on this one act. - Just Observing - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:45 pm: John B… It is a partisan race, even though Claypool is running as an independent. I think Shaw is going a bit too far. He and the BGA could certainly point out concerns re: Berrios, but bringing Claypool into race makes it too political. I like Claypool but I’m suspect as to his entry in the race. I always find it as politically convenient for politicians to attack the assessment process as the cause of high taxes when in truth it is government spending. I also found it disingenuous of Claypool to go on FOX News Chicago and say that the ward bosses got together and moved the primary date to the coldest day of the year to supress voter turnout when he knows very well it was moved to help Obama. - bored now - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:48 pm: did he ask people to vote for forrest? or was he just saying nice things? seems to me that federal law is pretty specific about where and when you cross that line, and anything short of “vote for candidate fc” is within what is allowed for non-profits in their voter education role. i don’t know why it would be different for a local election/non-profit. andy is placing the “good government” label on claypool, not actually asking us to vote for him… - L.S. - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 12:50 pm: Could it be that Andy Shaw is using a non-profit, tax-exempt group to try and settle old scores and make baseless ethical claims? Duh. Shaw is an ego-maniac who is typical of the dillusional “reformer” who thinks they are above it all. It can’t be wrong, because we have an acronym about better government in our mission statement. - Niles Township - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 1:04 pm: While I agree 100% with Shaw, Terry Brunner, Mike Lyons, and many others greats across the years of BGA work would have never written this type of piece. For better or worse, the BGA is no longer the investigative journalism outfit it once was. Today, it serves a media/political analyst role on tv and in the papers. - siriusly - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 1:08 pm: Great point Just Obeserving: “I also found it disingenuous of Claypool to go on FOX News Chicago and say that the ward bosses got together and moved the primary date to the coldest day of the year to supress voter turnout when he knows very well it was moved to help Obama. ” - I read that in the paper and thought it was BS too. - siriusly - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 1:09 pm: Observing. Sorry. That was not meant to be a fat joke. - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 1:15 pm: Yes, Shaw went too far. “Pointing out the issues and players as he sees them” is perfectly appropriate, but he crossed the line by putting his “advocacy” of good government into the explicitly political context of a campaign. This wasn’t a column about ethically challenged public officials so much as it was an evaluation of candidates that expressed a clear preference for one over the other(s). Maybe it wasn’t an “endorsement,” per se, but a wink is as good as a nod. And such semantics, as well as the letter vs. the spirit of the law conflict inherent in this question, are an ironic echo of Shaw’s own lament about ‘legal, but unethical’ practices, and it hurts the BGA’s credibility that such a question even needs to be asked. - Government Can Do Better - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 1:24 pm: We’ve seen a lot of Andy Shaw lately and while I find him annoying–I am grateful to him for pointing out–and hammering away really–on the Assessors Race. People need to hear about this incredible situation daily until the election. As a plain citizen who cares about the future of this State–our bond rating, our success with federal grants, and the immediate situation with State funding for social services and education–I think we must demonstrate that we are paying attention–that we voters are not completly oblivious to the problems in the State (from the particularly loathsome Governors, to the cowardly legislature (shame on you for not voting for a tax increase–the pain that is coming later this summer will be dreadful) and the downright embarrassing recent election for Lt. Governor) or the crooks might really start moving in. So as far as Andy Shaw is concerned–I think he’s right about Mr. Berrios and his outrageous conflict of interest. The Forrest Claypool endorsement is over the top–but I’m not sure that it will take anything less to get the message out there to the voters and to start some norm changes with those who think a vote for Berrios is a responsible action. - Stallion - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 1:38 pm: Seeing as Claypool doesnt have the campaign cash like Berrios does, it looks to me like Shaw is going to do what he can to campaign for Claypool under the BGA.. - cover - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 1:59 pm: Had Mr. Shaw stuck to the message that a third, non-partisan option on the ballot is good for voters, I would have no problem with that. But once he strayed into touting one candidate’s qualifications vs. another’s, he has stepped in it. Nice way to jeopardize both your organization’s credibility and its non-profit status! You can guess what “it” is (as in the TV-edited version of Forrest Gump), although in the eyes of many, another synonym for “it” is “politics”. - Hypocrisy - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 2:31 pm: It’s been speculated by commenters here and on other blogs that Claypool left the public sector to cash in a la Rahm in the private sector. If that is the case, wouldn’t Claypool essentially be cashing in on his public reputation and personal political connection to personally enrich himself? Is that any different than what folks like the BGA and Carol Marin and the so called “goo-goos,” rail against when they criticize machine politicians like Berrios? I think there is a bit of a double standard here. - PFK - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 2:37 pm: The way he dismisses the Republican and Green Party candidates is offensive…clearly Shaw didn’t base his judgement on credentials or ideas (the Green Party candidate for instance has EXTENSIVE experience directly relevant to the office of Assessor). According to his site, he’s a member of several professional assessor associations and has even developed assessor software. http://grotaforcookcountyassessor.com/experience What has Claypool done in this area, besides voting on the budget for the Assesor’s office? Claypool’s web site doesn’t tell you much except about his qualifications, except that he’s supposedly “independent”. Shaw showed that he hasn’t left his old job…that he’s still all about selling a storyline of money, name recognition, and Machine politics. So as long as Shaw is in charge, the BGA should change its name to the Better Political Branding Association, because Shaw has made it his organization’s business to reinforce this idea that Claypool is some kind of independent reformer. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 2:56 pm: Shaw and the BGA stepped in it big time. Someone wrote: === Not sure how I feel about him endorsing a candidate after he says they don’t do that, however. Sure, they’re a private entity entitled to endorse candidates if they so choose === Let’s be clear, its not that they choose not to endorse candidates, the BGA is prohibited from endorsing candidates as a condition of their non-profit status. He probably could have gotten away with slamming Berrios on ethics and touting Claypool’s refusal to accept contributions from property tax attorneys. But he crossed the line when he started touting their strengths and weaknesses as candidates. He erased the line when he started speculating about the viability of the Republican and Green Party candidates. And when he suggested that Berrios’ platform should include the 7% cap, an issue which is far outside the BGA’s mission. And he openly defied the law when he regurgitated Houlihan’s endorsement of Claypool and encouraged folks to sign Claypool’s nominating petitions. As an aside, the Tribune editorial page editors should have known better than to run this piece. - Avy Meyers - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 3:24 pm: Andy Shaw went way too far and it is not the first time. I have lost whatever respect I had for the BGA due to his performance there. That was a partisan political article in the BGA’s name. Both thumbs down for Shaw and the BGA. - Bill - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 4:25 pm: The fact that Andy likes Forrest (Gump) Claypool is just another reason to vote for Berrios. - Old Timer Dem - Wednesday, Apr 14, 10 @ 7:09 pm: Shaw is a Claypool cheerleader. Claypool selling himself as an independent is a joke. Independent of who? Is he independent of the Washington boys like Axelrod? Claypool is as phony as a three dollar bill. He was going to follow his dream to provide affordable healthcare and subsequently set up a Claypool company to cash in. Obviously it did not work out or there was not enough money in it for him. Claypool and Shaw are phonies and are as bad or worse than Berrios. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.