40 Comments - shore - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 10:38 am: Yes. In a state like this where there are enough problems with this sort of thing already it should be a no brainer. If you are not smart enough to develop literature that somehow notes your standing you should probably not be a legislator in the first place. that is all. - VanillaMan - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 10:47 am: This is Illinois. With our long list of government corruption, we must take extra steps to eliminate any future problems. We have to start erring on the side of caution regarding these issues. Yes! Ban the state seal from all campaigns. - Obamarama - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 10:48 am: No. Is it bad form? Sure. But frankly as long as public monies aren’t being expended, I don’t see the harm. Plus, as Shore said, if that is the best you can come up with you need a new job (or a new campaign staff). - Montrose - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 10:52 am: **How about we spend our time and energy on, you know, the ****ING BUDGET?!?!?!** Can we ban all comments that include lines such as this one? It is a waste of space. To the question - No. The state seal should be reserved for state business. Throwing it on your fund raising appeal is stepping over the line, even if it is not breaking the law. - Montrose - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 10:53 am: I meant to say “Yes” - It should be banned. - Rich Miller - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 10:54 am: Montrose, that person was deleted. I deleted him/her so fast that I didn’t bother to see who it was. If that person returns, allow me to say this: We have a kabillion posts about the budget here, including today. If you want to debate the budget, go to those posts. If you want to leave profane, stupid comments here, you’re gonna be banned - that is, if I take the time to ban you. Man, I hate morons. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 10:56 am: Yes. What is the purpose of the seal except to convey that it is an official state document? - A.B. - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 10:59 am: Rich - I fail to see why my straight forward comment / question of “Who really cares?” was deleted. Maybe I didn’t explain clearly, but the reason I ask is if that is not a legal issue, then it is a question of what should / shouldn’t be law. With that in mind, I really don’t think the public cares one way or another. Therefore it would be an issue for a political opponent to try and make into a campaign issue, but Duffy has a by this year, which once again brings me back to my original question. “Who cares?” Of you can just delete me again, but I would prefer to skip the banning part…. - Joe from Joliet - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:00 am: Let’s see: If a legislator sends a mailing and calls it a constituent update, the taxpayers have to pay for it. If they put a seal on and pay for it themselves then they should probably not be legislators in the first place. Got it. - Rich Miller - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:01 am: AB, the question has nothing to do with his reelection. It’s about changing a state law. So, I fail to see what good keeping your objection around is. Answer the question, for Pete’s sake. - Siriusly - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:04 am: Great QOTD! Yes, absolutely. This is not a freedom of speech issue. This is about politicians wanting to abuse public property (intellectual property of the state seal) and use it to attempt to leverage additional campaign dollars by implying official document status. That law needs to be changed. The state seal should absolutely be prohibited from political materials. It is just as much state (public) property as the state capitol and state office equipment. If they can defend that, then perhaps it would be okay for me to make up a mail piece with the state seal on it - as a private citizen - and ask state vendors for money for my State Government Contractors PAC. I’m a citizen of the state, its my state’s seal - what’s the big deal? - SangamoGOP - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:07 am: Jesse White used the state seal for his newspaper ads in the SJR for his spring fundraiser. To paraphrase, if you’re not smart enough to figure out the difference between a political event and a governmental function, perhaps you shouldn’t be donating or voting. As long as anyone can use the seal - incumbent & challenger[s] - then there is no harm and it shouldn’t be banned. - Siriusly - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:11 am: Senator Kotowski should also be aware that its not just Duffy. There are some members in his caucus that abuse the seal too. I remember seeing an email from Martin Sandoval where he endorsed Cherlye Jackson for US Senate and it was on his “official” Senator Sandoval email template. Another great endorsement decision - well played Marty! - Leroy - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:11 am: Sure. Just after Jesse White’s name gets removed from my drivers license. - Me - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:18 am: Yes it should be banned. You can’t use Chicago City Seal for any campaign mailers etc, so why should you be able to use the state seal? - Sent from my iPhone - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:19 am: ==== Just after Jesse White’s name gets removed from my drivers license. ==== And the Chairman Mao-like pictures of him in the Driver Services offices. - downhereforyears - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:21 am: Yes, it gives the impression that the state is sanctioning the solicitation by Duffy. - Anon - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:26 am: I was in the Senate Executive Appointments Committee last week when Senator DeLeo brought the letter to the committee’s attention after Senator Duffy went after two appointments who were wives of legislators. Let me say it was the most entertaining committee I have ever been in. Senator Duffy reminded me of Martin Short’s character Nathan Thurm afterwards. Anyway, getting back to the question, yes it needs to be banned. The Duffy solicitation looked like it was on his official letterhead. Unless you knew what you were looking for, you wouldn’t have known it was paid for by his campaign. - Been There - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:29 am: I don’t see much diffence using the state seal and using the American flag on campaign material. The seal is part of our state flag. It is not just used for official business since it is allowed on our flag. And the flag, along with the seal, should be allowed to be used by all. - Scooby - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:30 am: Yes, so should any reference to any of the following: “State of Illinois”, “State Senate/Senator”, “State Representative, House of Representatives”, “State Budget”, “State Agencies (full list prohibited)”, “State Contract/Contractor”. All of these things refer to items that are paid for with state tax dollars. Further all campaign literature should have the following mandatory disclosure, “I am contacting you in reference to an upcoming popularity contest which I hope to win. It would be a breach of my ethical integrity and your tax dollars to tell you which one, or anything about it so I won’t.” I don’t understand why we allow for elections to be connected to the operation of goverment just because one singlehandedly decides the outcome of the other. Ban them all and lift the moratorium on the death penalty so we can execute the offenders! - Pat Robertson - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:36 am: Yes! We need more petty rules that can be enforced selectively or used to distract voters from the fact that no substantive matters are being debated by the candidates! - Way Way Down Here - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 11:56 am: ===And the Chairman Mao-like pictures of him in the Driver Services offices.=== Thanks iPhone, made me laugh out loud. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 12:10 pm: Sure, ban that practice. Kinda goes along with the concept of avoiding the appearance of impropriety. - wordslinger - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 12:23 pm: The seal should be reserved for official state business only. - 47th Ward - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 12:39 pm: ===The seal should be reserved for official state business only.=== Agreed. That it is not so protected is mind-boggling. All government seals should be banned from any literature or web site not directly related to official business. 177 legislators and no one has made this really easy and needed change? That sure looks like legislative negligence to me. - Been There - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 1:04 pm: ======The seal should be reserved for official state business only.=== ===Agreed. That it is not so protected is mind-boggling. All government seals should be banned from any literature or web site not directly related to official business. 177 legislators and no one has made this really easy and needed change? That sure looks like legislative negligence to me. === As I pointed out earlier the seal is on our state flag. Should they not be allowed to fly our flag to in their political offices? or show on their web sites? - 47th Ward - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 1:14 pm: Been There, your point is not compelling. A flag is not a seal, even if the seal is incorporated into a flag. Seals are affixed to certain documents to lend the credibility of the state (or city or county) to the documents. A flag is often used as a decoration and connotes no official action or credibility. Apples and Grapefruit. - A.B. - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 1:19 pm: Ok, I have to ask the question, Why does it matter if the State Seal is used on campaign literature? Personally I don’t feel strongly either way on this issue, but I am struggling with why it is a problem. The state seal is a symbol that identifies the state of Illinois. So is the state flag along with a variety of other symbols. Our candidates are placing their name on the ballot to be considered to serve the state of Illinois. In this case they are using the state seal to identify the state they wish to serve. Is this different than having the flag? (and yes I realize the IL flag has the seal on it) By the same perspective, what about a federal candidate appears with the American flag? I would assume these laws exist so that people cannot mislead people. However, if that is the nature of the law, then should we discuss Pres. Obama’s faux presidential seal from the ‘08 election? Even though it is not the same, isn’t it intended to give the presidential image or perception? Like I said, I don’t feel strongly one way or another, but I am intrigued by what the intent of a new law would be…. - plutocrat03 - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 1:27 pm: There is also a common business misuse of public symbols. Commercial organizations appropriate Village, State or town logos and make solicitations with unstated association with the public bodies. This is not illegal, but false association like Mr. Dufffy’s should be limited. - John Bambenek - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 1:44 pm: How about this… ban the use of the state seal on campaign literature while you’re banning the use of the legislative process for campaign fodder? - Robert - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 3:00 pm: No, don’t ban it, but charge for its use, as the Better Business Bureau charges for organizations to use its seal. - Betsy - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 3:50 pm: It’s bleepin’ golden. - JonShibleyFan - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 4:05 pm: I think it’s bad form, but it shouldn’t be banned. State letterhead? Yes. Photos taken by state staff that aren’t publicly available? Absolutely. I have to question why you’d use it. I mean, are folks in the district so enamored of the legislature that the seal is worth a few more dollars or votes? And surely a quiet, humble, unassuming public servant, who never seeks to draw attention to himself and whose dealings with his colleagues is always friendly and cordial like Duffy wouldn’t do ANYTHING that had even the slightest hint of impropriety, would he? - Justice - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 4:07 pm: Let them use it as long as they prominently display a disclaimer that the use does not represent an official document. Charge them for the use and form a department to monitor it. Said department must be made up of hacks and cronies and must cost double the savings. - JonShibleyFan - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 4:07 pm: …heck, if all that were true, next thing you know, this humble servant would be trying to overturn laws that have caused him harm, like, say, red light cameras, to grab an example off the top of my head. And of course he wouldn’t do that. - Publiusj - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 4:14 pm: 5 ILCS 460/5 (2010) [Prior to 1/1/93 cited as: Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 1, para. 2901-5] § 5 ILCS 460/5. State seal Sec. 5. State seal. (a) The reproduction of the emblem only on the “great seal of the State of Illinois” is authorized and permitted when reproduced in black or in the national colors upon a white sheet or background and bearing underneath the emblem in blue letters the word “Illinois” and being an actual reproduction of the great seal, except for the outer ring, for use as a State banner or insignia under the conditions and subject to the restrictions provided by the laws of the United States and the State of Illinois as to the United States or State flag or ensign. (b) It is lawful for the Secretary of State as custodian of the “great seal of the State of Illinois” to permit at his or her discretion the inspection and examination of the seal for the purpose of copying or reproducing the emblem only on the great seal for the uses and purposes authorized by this Section. I’m no lawyer, but the law would seem to imply that the Secretary of State’s office may be able to set reasonable limits on the use of the Illinois seal. If Jesse White were to issue a statement or finding to the effect that the State Seal of Illinois was being misused for improper purposes, he would be able to revoke its use for that purpose. The law doesn’t have any enforcement mechanism (i.e. fines, punishment), but such a law would easily be upheld. Congress has recently passed laws prohibiting the reproduction of military medals - this would seem to fall into the same category. - yinn - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 5:56 pm: Yes. We need better separation of politics and government wherever we can achieve it. Lack of such boundaries is a major problem. - Amalia - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 6:30 pm: State Seal….somehow I have visions of several members of the legislature together and yapping about something. like seals on rocks. - ????? - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 8:16 pm: Rich - why don’t you report why it was questioned…the practice of giving state reps and state senators spouses appts to commissions should be outlawed…why do these people get over 100,000 salary for 12 meetings a year or less, plus they get benefits and a pension…what the heck…then you get a State Senator like schoenberg trying to cover up that his wife was getting a appt by using her maiden name….the dems brought this forward because Duffy questioned that one and a state rep’s spouse getting another $100,000 plus appt to a commission - why not eliminate these??? - Rich Miller - Monday, May 10, 10 @ 10:55 pm: ===why don’t you report why it was questioned=== We actually had a question of the day about that topic weeks ago. Keep up or try the Google. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.