Question of the day
Friday, Sep 10, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller
* We haven’t had a whole lot of news about the state treasurer’s race, but things have heated up since Democratic nominee Robin Kelly accused Republican state Sen. Dan Rutherford of violating state law…
According to state campaign records, Rutherford this year received two contributions worth $3,000 from Fred Drake, the chief executive officer of Bloomington-based Heartland Bank & Trust Co.
He also received a $500 contribution from Pan American Bank.
Kelly, who is a top aide to state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, said since Heartland is a depository for state funds over $50,000, Rutherford is in violation of newly enacted pay-to-play laws aimed at cracking down on businesses getting lucrative state contracts by doling out campaign dollars. Pan American, she said, bid on a contract that would have been worth more than the $50,000 cap.
“Given the scandal and controversy surrounding Illinois politics, I am extremely troubled and disappointed that my opponent would take political money from banks that are doing more than $1 million in state business with the Treasurer’s Office,” said Kelly.
Rutherford said neither bank is technically a contractor, meaning they do not fall within the 2009 changes to the state’s campaign finance laws.
“Dan Rutherford has followed the law,” said spokesman Brad Hahn. “She forgot to check her facts.”
Kelly’s campaign has a new campaign video about the dustup. Watch it.
* The Question: Setting aside the legalities, do you think Sen. Rutherford should reverse his decision to accept campaign contributions from banks that have state deposits? Explain.
- t zoble - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 12:43 pm:
I think it would be an issue if the Sen. had taken the money while serving as the treasurer. Since he currently has no controll over the office or it’s contracts, I think it is no a problem. However, by accepting this money he would be unable to award contracts to these banks after he wins the office.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 12:44 pm:
Assuming it’s legal, no way should Rutherford refuse contributions from anybody. Ask Governor Poshard how unilateral disarmament works in politics.
- OneMan - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 12:47 pm:
No it doesn’t sound like a violation to me…
So if they do not meet the requirements then what’s the issue.
The question I have is how can she run for office full time and be a full time employee of the treasurer’s office? It’s not like she is an elected, doesn’t she like have to you know, work?
- Liandro - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 12:53 pm:
Setting aside the legalities, it would be wise to refuse donations directly from banks that are involved with the state. But from individuals? I don’t see how anyone can or should prevent them from donating to their chosen candidate. According to an article Drake has known and supported Rutherford since high school. He should be free to support his candidate.
If you include the legalities I honestly get lost. I don’t know enough about campaign finance to fully grasp where the gray areas are and where the abuses/corruption have typically played out. This whole thing just seems like a potshot taken to see if she can land a hit (something both sides do, obviously). For me it doesn’t really land. I don’t see Rutherford selling his soul for a $500 bank donation.
- Judy - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 12:54 pm:
The Pan American Bank contract award is on the Treasurer’s website.
http://www.treasurer.il.gov/about-us/procurement-opportunities/contracts-awarded.aspx
- eastsider - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:04 pm:
Seems like a non-issue and Robin Kelly looks a little desperate for dirt with these accusations.
The commercial was the worst political ad I’ve seen around the state thus far. Bad music, pictures were too small (I had to watch it twice to realize Karl Rove was in one of the pictures), font was poor, etc. All around bad. I’d give it a D-
- OneMan - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:08 pm:
==The Pan American Bank contract award is on the Treasurer’s website.
http://www.treasurer.il.gov/about-us/procurement-opportunities/contracts-awarded.aspx ==
Yes it is, with a date of August 31st, 2010 on the document.
Lets look at the document
http://www.treasurer.il.gov/about-us/procurement-opportunities/nca/NCAPostingForPanAmericanBank2010-08-31.pdf
Notice the date on the PDF file 2010-08-31
Contract was awarded 6/29/2010 that is kind of important because….
If you do a search on Pan American bank as a donor they gave money to Rutherford on 5/10/2010
Pan American Bank
2627 W. Cermak Road
Chicago, IL 60608 $500.00
5/10/2010 Individual Contribution
Dan Rutherford Campaign Committee
So the treasurers office lists the contract on it’s web site 2 months after it is awarded and it is not listed on the comptrollers web site (where you are suposed to check) and the contract was awarded after the donation.
So what’s the problem here, well besides it took two months for the contract after it was awarded to show up on the Treasurers web site.
Interesting….
- OneMan - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:14 pm:
Sorry one month….
- Ghost - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:17 pm:
It has the appearance of impropriety. A buisiness that does ro is seeking wrk from the State helps to get somone elcted who has authority or input in the award of the work that business handles?
This is a legtimate issue given the problems in IL and Rutherford should just give the money back.
- Anon - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:21 pm:
Rutherford should give the money back - Period.
Also, Senator Rutherford should take his own advice and take time to be a Senator instead of being on the road all the time to fundraisers and campaign events during the day!
- OneMan - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:22 pm:
== A buisiness that does ro is seeking wrk from the State helps to get somone elcted who has authority or input in the award of the work that business handles? ==
Well using that logic then anyone who does business with the state shouldn’t be giving….
- OneMan - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:23 pm:
Last time I checked being a State Senator is a part time job, being chief of staff of the treasurers office isn’t.
Also unless I missed something, they are not in session down in Springfield…
- CM46 - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:28 pm:
Just one question. The Contract was awarded 31 Aug? When was the check for $500 received?
But like you said setting aside legalities - from the Pan American Bank, yes. From the individual, no.
- Anon - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:30 pm:
So you are telling me that since Rutherford is an elected official it is ok to campaign and fundraise all day long? He still gets paid year round, session or no session, AND Illinois taxpayer money goes into his nice big pension fund all year round.
- OneMan - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:30 pm:
CM46 (5/10/2010)
Pan American Bank
2627 W. Cermak Road
Chicago, IL 60608 $500.00
5/10/2010 Individual Contribution
Dan Rutherford Campaign Committee
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:33 pm:
Stick to the question people. Last warning. Deletions to follow.
- Ghost - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:38 pm:
OneMan exactly. Anyone doin business with the state should not be contributing money to the elected officials, in any amount. There is far to much implied pressure to give money if you want the work.
BTW Lisa madigan does not take money from any employee or contractor with her office, even thought it is legal. When integrity only exisits and operates under the contrants of the law, we have no integrity.Ruherford can and should operate above board, not within loop holes designed to draw in cash from those wanting, seeking or hoping for work from him somday.
- Reformer - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:51 pm:
To the extent that Republicans are running on a clean-up-gov’t platform, it’s unseemly to split hairs and argue technicalities.
- OneMan - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 1:54 pm:
Well since it would appear my response Ghost is off question…
No I don’t think he should give it back. It appears to be within the law.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 2:13 pm:
Yes, a candidate for treasurer shouldn’t take contributions from banks that want deposits. They make money off of those.
Nothing against Rutherford. In the great scheme of things, the office, race and money are all small bore. But given our recent, and past, history, no one gets the benefit of the doubt.
- The Captain - Friday, Sep 10, 10 @ 2:25 pm:
The law says that you can’t accept contributions from companies that do business with the office. The law applies equally to incumbent Treasurer’s as it does candidates. The law also requires anyone who does business with the office to file a form with the State Board of Elections. Rutherford seems to be hiding behind the fact that it’s ok for him to accept this illegal contribution because the donors also illegally failed to file with the State Board of Elections.
Rutherford should return his illegal contributions for two reasons, 1) because it’s illegal, 2) because it’s the right thing to do. Also, he should stop accepting illegal contributions, not as a matter of policy, but as a matter of following the law.
- Irish - Saturday, Sep 11, 10 @ 11:44 am:
One man - If the members of the GA are part time then why did they prorate their pay for 365 days when figuring the amount to be docked for a Furlough Day? Can’t have it both ways.
And even if it is not technically illegal they all take an ethics test, (remember this being brought up in the Blago trial ?), that states If the act evens appears to the public to be unethical it should not be done. If you don’t answer correctly to the questions supporting that statement you don’t pass. So evidently he is answering one thing on the test and then knowingly slirting the rules for his benefit. Sound familiar?