|
A peek behind the scenes
Friday, Oct 7, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller * WBEZ aired a really good story on Mike Kasper this morning. Kasper, as most of you know, is a Statehouse and Chicago lobbyist. But he’s also a bigtime Democratic lawyer. He handled the House impeachment process of Rod Blagojevich, defended Rahm Emanuel in his residency lawsuit, is the lead lawyer defending the Democrats’ new district maps, defends favored Dems during the petitioning process and helps knock unfavored Dems and Republicans off the ballot. He even does some personal legal work for members…
But here’s an important aspect to the story…
Since Kasper probably wrote that law, there’s most likely a good reason why it’s a “gray area.” …Adding… Good points from commenter Willie Stark…
* There’s been a long Statehouse tradition of the best - and most favored - legislative staffers leaving after several years of service and becoming lobbyists. Kasper was House Speaker Michael Madigan’s chief legal counsel before moving up. One of Kasper’s lobbying partners is Courtney Nottage, ex-Senate President Emil Jones’ former chief of staff and his top campaign guy. Another is David Dring, who flacked for House GOP Leader Tom Cross. The firm’s lead lobster is Jim Fletcher. From his bio…
Fletcher was a partner at Winston & Strawn before Jim Thompson left office and joined the firm. He’s a Statehouse legend and a walking history book. He’s also one of the most pleasant people you’ll ever meet. Fletcher’s firm even touts this New York Times quote on its website…
Yep. And they are far from alone. Carter Hendren, Pate Philip’s former chief of staff and Jim Edgar’s first gubernatorial campaign manager is also a lobbyist. Hendren wields enormous backstage power in Republican circles. Tom Cullen, who ran Speaker Madigan’s campaign apparatus and took the House back from the Republicans in 1996, has a lobbying list as long as both your arms and is still very active in House Democratic campaigns. You could say that these guys (and they are almost all men) are the premium oil which makes the engine run. Their clients also provide a handy fundraising asset for their former employers. It’s almost a perfectly privatized political synergy. But all have been meticulously trained over the years to dot their i’s and cross their t’s. These are not the sort of people who are likely to be caught up in a scandal (yeah, there was that MSI thing with the Senate Repubs, but it was a long time ago). They most certainly have a definite “in” with their former employers, which is why they’re hired. Yet, they don’t always pass their bills. Not even clout can pass a bad bill. Discuss.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- wordslinger - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 11:01 am:
I didn’t know lawmakers could accept free legal work without disclosing. That’s crazy. The value of such work probably starts in the thousands with a potential value that’s through the roof.
That’s not a gray area at all.
- CircularFiringSquad - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 11:04 am:
The best part of this story will be this discussion. The story is pretty dopey. It’s premise is to smear Kasper, but he fails to find even one whiner to do it. The “gray area” comments is gutless. If someone wants to regulate lawyers differently go for it.
BTW Gotta love the way MSI — which was a multi million dollar scam when a million bought something is still dismissed. Now it is ancient history even though a number of the players are still playing and St.Edgar is still bestowing his blessings.
- The Captain - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 11:05 am:
Most of them are also pretty great to work with. These are not stupid people.
- Adam Smith - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 11:08 am:
As in all walks of life, there are good and bad players. Lobbying is not different. The people you mentioned are generally acknowledged as straight-shooters, trustworthy, and good at what they do. They serve clients well.
Problem is, the lousy lobbyists who are chasing every dollar and who promise the moon and cut corners beget the scandals that tar the whole profession.
The free legal work issue could use tightening up, but Kasper certainly doesn’t seem to be hiding anything.
- siriusly - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 11:11 am:
Great comments above, agree. Most lobbyists are honest hard working people with integrity. Some are not - those who aren’t quickly get a reputation in Springfield. We all know who they are.
Agree, the legal work needs to be disclosed. More information, more disclosure more sunlight - are all good things for the public, good for the lobbyists and good for the candidates.
- Jake From Elwood - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 11:16 am:
Mr. Kasper is one of the best and brightest and I believe he is very careful to stay within prescribed ethical and/or legal boundaries.
Prof. Redfield is right to point out the need for more transparency overall, not just for one lobbyist who also practices election law.
- Realist - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 11:21 am:
This tight circle of people on the Democratic side will break apart as soon as Speaker Madigan leaves the stage, which could well be in January 2013.
All things eventually end.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 11:34 am:
===All things eventually end. ===
True, but I just don’t see it yet.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 11:41 am:
===This tight circle of people on the Democratic side will break apart as soon as Speaker Madigan leaves the stage===
And even if Madigan does leave, I really doubt this will happen. Fletch is still going strong and so is Carter, but their clout left a long time ago. They are now the clout.
If anything, the HDem guys could become even more important as they advise the new Speaker on how to get things done.
- Bill F. - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 12:06 pm:
What Rich said.
When the institutional brains leave the capitol, the talented lobbyists and staffers stay and become the institutional brains.
This is especially true where there are term limits, but if MJM decides to hang it up (and I am not even close to certain he will, regardless of who else runs for what), those guys will be to go to for politics under the dome.
- Team Sleep - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 12:21 pm:
I realize there are good and honest lobbyists - so please don’t just ream me for my following comments - but stories like this and this type of post about power brokers shows in part what is wrong with our political system. There is too much big money and clout-heavy influence over the law-making and electoral process in our state. Not that I enjoy quoting Michele Bachmann, but crony capitalism is alive and well in our state and federal political systems. The insiders on this blog will defend lobbyists and those who hold the power but most voters are quite turned off by it. I understand most lobbyists are decent people. I also understand that businesses and firms need to have government affairs people; that’s a necessary evil. It’s just not something for which I do not care.
- Team Sleep - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 12:23 pm:
Sorry - I meant to say that is something for which I do not care.
- Adam Smith - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 12:39 pm:
If the legislators worked half as hard or knew half as much as most lobbyists the state would be decidedly better off.
There is almost no one in this state who, directly or indirectly, does not have someone lobbying for their interests in Springfield. Farmers, small biz, nurses, teachers, accountants, pro-lifers, gun owners, social workers, etc. etc.
These lobbyists, many of whom don’t lobby full time, and many are even volunteers, give voices to millions of people.
Legislators often rely too much on lobbyists for information instead of doing their own homework and they often blindly carry water for their favored interest groups. If lobbyists have run amok it is because legislators let them and the voters have a bi-annual opportunity to remedy that.
- just sayin' - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 12:41 pm:
Yeah just sort of a AA farm club version of the D.C. culture, K Street lobbyists etc. Maybe single A would be better anoulogy.
Those who know the ropes and focus on gov’t exclusively as their job, get the most. Not particularly earth shattering.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 12:51 pm:
===but most voters are quite turned off by it===
While I don’t doubt that for a second, I would add that most voters don’t spend more than a couple of minutes thinking about the complexities of legislation, the backbone of our legal system that governs how we live together in society. Voters think of government like a power company: when they need some light, they flip the switch, with almost no thought to the science and ingenuity that goes into producing a kilowatt of electricity that then gets sent to the bulb. It’s simply flip and forget.
The people mentioned above have devoted their adult lives to understanding the process and minutia of public decision-making. The Constitution gives all Americans the right to petition government, and these people take that right seriously. They also understand and for the most part respect the responsibilities that go with it.
Voters don’t like insiders influencing laws, but they also don’t want to learn enough about it either. It’s complicated and specialized, and while greater transparency is always welcome, most voters have long since abdicated complex decision-making, leaving it to others so they shouldn’t complain about insiders. Every industry is dominated by insiders, why should government be any different?
- Team Sleep - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 1:01 pm:
47th, I would contend that most of the Illinois Compiled Statutes are way to complex for the general citizenry to understand. Too many are written by lawyers and lobbyists and are designed in such a difficult-to-understand fashion. My experience is more with federal laws and regulations but they are not much different.
- Coach - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 1:06 pm:
It’s amazing (but not surprising) that campaigns aren’t required to declare legal work as in-kind contributions. Legal advice is as essential to a campaign as a website or direct mail - it should be a no brainer that it’s an in-kind contribution subject to disclosure.
- Anon - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 1:59 pm:
Legal and accounting work are two areas allowed to be donated to federal campaigns as well without limitation or disclosure. If it wasn’t, you could bankrupt campaigns with frivolous lawsuits forcing them to incur legal fees.
The only gray area appears to be when a lobbyist, who lobbies a candidate on an issue, also donates their legal time to the candidate’s campaign. In this instance, perhaps disclosure should be required, but not definitely not limited.
FYI - Kasper is a good man and this is really a non-issue IMHO. We may not like the current law, but it doesn’t appear that anyone broke it.
- Willie Stark - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 2:33 pm:
This is a story that’s been written before and fits into a certain well-worn narrative about government and politics in Illinois. Fine. That’s free speech. Unaddressed by Mr. Redfield or the reporter is another aspect of free speech and the provisions of the first amendment. Unlike the above mentioned direct mail, there is not necessarily a quantifiable, fair market value to be put on it. We know how much postage costs, how much paper, and how much printing. When it comes to services and volunteer activities, how are those to be quantified? The first amendment protects the right to associate with whom one chooses without government interference (setting aside, obviously, those engaged in criminal or seditious behaviors). So, in the political context, if I want to volunteer to write speeches for a candidate, and I am a writer, must that be reported as a donation to the campaign? If I design a website for a campaign, and perhaps I’m not a website designer, I have to somehow estimate the value of my time and that is to be reported? If I’m a secretary and I answer phones for the campaign, is that an in-kind? Even if one were to require in-kind disclosure of legal services, at what rate? Attorneys charge different kind of clients different rates. Who’s to say what they should charge and to whom? They also do pro-bono work. So, if attorneys have to report, why not everyone else who volunteers for a campaign? And, is that where we want to go? That clearly inhibits freedom of association.
So, the problem isn’t stories like WBEZ’s. The problem is that they never go beyond the conventional narrative or more fully consider the complexities and implications involved.
The biggest challenge in our political system is that too many citizens have disengaged themselves from it; simply taken for granted their birthright and the freedoms so many have died to preserve. A more active citizenry would make a difference, even against large amounts of money. That’s one of the reasons the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon has been so interesting thus far to watch unfold.
- Colossus - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 2:36 pm:
Anon 1:59:
I hadn’t considered the strategic angle of forcing expenditures on legal services, I think there is a good point there. But only to argue against there being limits on the amount of donated time/”labor”. I don’t think there is any reason any candidate should ever receive anything from someone without having to report it to Election.
We live in the information age, and it’s getting more and more difficult to justify why the voters shouldn’t have access to this kind of information. just because no one broke the law here doesn’t mean the law is right.
- Rob Ventura - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 2:48 pm:
If you can put a price on it, i.e. Hourly rate, it should be disclosed as should personal legal work, pro Bono or other wise
- Willie Stark - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 3:05 pm:
RV: That’s a statement/opinion, not an argument.
We have minimum wage laws, so we therefore would have an hourly wage rate we could assign to any activity. So, anyone who volunteers on a campaign should have to therefore report an in-kind in at least that amount for hours they spend in their volunteer activities. Is that what we mean to do? If not, how does disadvantaging a particular class of worker (lawyer) square with the freedom of association implicit in the first amendment’s freedom of assembly?
It doesn’t seem so black and white to me that those who in their professional lives bill at an hourly rate should have to also bill and report for their personal political activities, but maybe others can show how it is.
- Jaded - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 3:50 pm:
In the interest of full disclosure (if that is what we are really after) yes, people should have to disclose the number of hours they work on a campaign. You don’t have to put a price on it, just the number of hours and type of work. It would be pretty easy since almost every campaign has a sign in sheet on the front desk.
The disclosure could be pretty simple:
Joe the Plumber 2 hours for the stopped up toilet. No charge.
Sally homemaker 10 hours answering phones and stuffing envelopes. No charge.
Carter Hendren 10 hours “consulting.” No charge.
Mike Kasper 10 hours “legal work”. No charge.
Don’t see how that “disadvantages” anyone, but, as is often the case, I may be wrong.
Now I think it is time for a beer. Of course if a legislator joins me, and I buy, you’ll know, because I have to report that every two weeks.
- reformer - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 4:06 pm:
Willie makes a good point. If a lobbyist walks a precinct for a legislator, that doesn’t have to be reported currently, does it?
- Cardozo - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 4:21 pm:
Last I heard was that volunteering on a campaign was legal in Illinois. Reporting requirements for those with potential financial interests in government is not a good idea.
- Willie Stark - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 4:22 pm:
In the interest of full disclosure then, I should probably not be Willie Stark and you should not be Jaded. We should just put our real names up here. But, there must be some reason we don’t do so. Similarly, there are no doubt any number of people who would elect not to volunteer for political campaigns were that information to be disclosed publicly. For example, maybe I work for a prominent pro-life conservative who owns an engineering company in Elgin. I want to volunteer to stuff envelopes, phone bank, and do office tasks for a candidate who is pro-choice. Am I likely to do that if my boss would have a way of finding out? The 1st amendment protects anonymous political speech and freedom of association, which is what such activities represent.
- Jaded - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 4:22 pm:
Lori Lobbyist 3 hours, canvassing. No charge.
None of this currently has to be reported. The point is, if we are going to disclose buying a freaking beer every 15 days, maybe it should all have to be reported. What influences a lawmaker more, buying them a meal or helping them get/stay elected? You tell me.
- Colossus - Friday, Oct 7, 11 @ 4:44 pm:
Maybe we should have an system that allows for enough economic opportunity that you don’t have to hide your political affiliations from your boss for fear of losing your home. Keeping politics secret leads to no one talking about it directly, face to face, with their real names, and instead leads to, well, the average comments section of the SJ-R.com. It’s this big thing, “Don’t talk about politics”, as if it’s preferable to have faceless organizations (cough~SUPERPACS~cough) decide what should be talked about instead of actual citizens interacting with each other.
Put a light on it. Know who actually supports the candidate and does the work to get that candidate elected. I certainly think there is a difference between what a lawyer contributes to an election and what Suzy (or Sam) Homemaker contributes. But if it’s an all or nothing proposition, I will take all over nothing any day. Conflating the two just sounds like you’re trying to reductio ad absurdem this idea before any of the merits get truly engrained in people’s heads.