Question of the day
Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Post-Dispatch tracked gaming-related contributions to legislators…
The Post-Dispatch also found that the votes of legislators generally tracked with where they got their money: Those who received primarily horse racing donations this year supported the expansion bill by a roughly 2-to-1 margin in the May floor votes of the Illinois House and Senate. Those who primarily received money from the existing casinos ended up voting against the bill by roughly the same margin.
* The revelations prompted a suggestion from a reform group…
“Either legislators are for sale, and they looked around at who gave to them for how to vote … or the givers looked to the friendly legislators” and rewarded them, said the watchdog group’s David Morrison.
Either way, he said, “Whenever there is an industry that relies on a state license to exist, there is a case to be made” for banning political contributions from those entities.
The state licenses a whole host of professions and industries. Realtors, doctors, beauticians, truckers, stock brokers and on and on and on.
* The Question: Should everyone with a “professional” state license be barred from contributing to campaigns? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- MrJM - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:09 am:
No. If for no other reason, because 1) the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently ruled that political contributions are “speech” protected by the First Amendment, and 2) Illinois cannot afford defending legislation that is unconstitutional on its face.
– MrJM
- siriusly - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:11 am:
I voted no, clearly you can’t ban whole classes of people from “political speech” as the courts deem contributions to be. But I think that it is appropriate to ban casinos, the companies that own them and operate them and their subsidiaries. I don’t think its right to ban their employees though.
Some would argue that contributions could be “filtered” through employees, but that should be illegal just as non-profit organizations cannot make campaign contributions and cannot pass them through employees either.
- mokenavince - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:19 am:
P.S I voted yes.
- downstate hack - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:21 am:
No, unconstitutional and impossible to regulate.
- walkinfool - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:27 am:
No. These individuals are citizens, with protected free speech. If anything should be restricted, it should be organizations and companies.
- LisleMike - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:30 am:
I voted “no”. Besides being unconstitutional, banning could create unintended consequences under Judicial review. Identify donors and hold them in sunlight, which is the biggest fear of those with ulterior motives.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:36 am:
No. State licenses an overwhelming number of businesses and individuals. How many drivers licenses are also out there that individuals need to go back and forth to work or need for work?
The best reform in this situation is to shine a strong light on it and demand the legislator vote responsibly.
- Dirt Digger - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:40 am:
So, doctors/lawyers/engineers/etc et al are also going to be banned from contributions?
It’s a silly idea with arbitrary targets of enforcement. Campaigns cost money; this is an amoral fact. ICPR’s complaint about one particular source of funding or another is just canned outrage at that fact.
- Das Man - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:42 am:
I voted no, for reasons similar to @siriusly. I also think it is lopsided to lump a beautician working out of her house with a well heeled casino owner in the same question, without regard to the influence of money in Illinois politics. As the article mentioned,
=Those who received primarily horse racing donations this year supported the expansion bill by a roughly 2-to-1 margin in the May floor votes of the Illinois House and Senate.=
Looks like the Statehouse is a good bet, if you can pay to play. The beautician in contrast is likely only to get a bad haircut.
- soccermom - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:46 am:
Nope. I am a big fan of the First Amendment.
- ChicagoR - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:47 am:
Although it would clearly be unconstitutional, I voted yes anyway. I’d love to see both doctors and lawyers prohibited from donating, because (a) I’m a lawyer and would love to say “sorry, can’t give!”, and (b) the lawyer and doctors just cancel each other out anyway.
- anon sequitor - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:47 am:
Absolutely not.
I’ve grown tired of this lazy media story broadly linking donations with votes. It is a chicken and egg story. What came first? The vote or the contribution.
If I received contributions from the ALCU and voted for one of their bills, was that vote bought? Or was the ACLU supporting me because of my convictions?
If I think coal is a critical industry to this state and my district, and I get contributions from people who believe the same, is that vote bought? No.
There may well be clear cut instances of votes being bought with campaign contributions, but just listing the bulk of contributions from an industry and then linking it to votes for that industry, is not indicative of anything illegal, or of votes being bought. At best, it is lazy reporting.
Take the time and effort to find the smoking gun, if there is one, and quit tar and feathering everybody with a broad brush.
- anon sequitor - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 11:49 am:
I need a contribution to buy a spelling correction program or typing lessons: should read ACLU above
- South of Sherman - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:00 pm:
We don’t need a ban on contributions. We need a better class of politician.
- WhoElseGoesDown - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:03 pm:
No. Because of that pesky constitution. Freedom of speech and all that.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:07 pm:
First Amendment. Voted NO.
I noticed that at the time of this post that the voting breakdown is roughly 50/50, yet the comments are breaking overwhelmingly NO. Curious. Who are these YES people, and why are they voting that way?
- Wensicia - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:09 pm:
Of course not, it’s unconstitutional. Though I wish there was a way to prevent legislators, and governors, from blatantly selling themselves to the highest contributer.
- Just Observing - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:19 pm:
What a ridiculous proposal. So a barber is prohibited from contributing because he or she is licensed yet a media mogul can contribute because he or she is not licensed? Basically you are limiting the free speech and political inolvement of certain professions. It is also ripe for abuse — what better way to silence a group than to license them. If florists were determined to be overly Democratic the GOP could propose licensing them to silence them (and vice versa).
- Responsa - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:23 pm:
No. Free speech is free speech. Whether we are a licensed professional, a retiree, a middle aged businessman, or a young parent we all have a vested interest in the success of this state and this country. Under the Constitution we are entitled to work for (and give contributions toward) the election of those people we believe most closely represent the values and hopes we have for our communities and for our families’ futures.
- CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:26 pm:
No abd ket us say posing the question shows a certain lack of common sense from the blog master
those voting yes probably how dumb they look and refuse to comment.
Ask the people who actually MAKE donations and they ill tell they are looking for the fix or special favor or deal. They either like the recipient or hate the recipient’s opponent
Those who don’t make contributions see evil around every corner and like to blame their failures on someone else
- Irish - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:27 pm:
I voted yes. I get the free spech thing. Maybe at least we should put large billboards at the state lines and on all routes into Springield that our legislators are for sale. And we should never get serious about reform or upset about our politicians catering to corporations, groups, or basically the highest bidder. Our elected officials will be the best money can buy.
I think that is the way it is now. And then we scratch our heads and say” What’s up with these occupy protestors.” “What’s their beef?”
- x ace - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:38 pm:
No, because State Farm is licensed , and if they couldn’t contribute millions to elect judges to the Supreme Ct and get a $ Billion + consumer protection Judgment overturned Illinois would lose a lot of jobs.
- One Repub - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:45 pm:
If you are looking at a license as some sort of a contract, then I say sure and then also include the Unions and the members they represent. What is good for the goose…
- JustaJoe - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:49 pm:
No, absolutely not. You can’t single out professionals that way. Free speech - yes. Why is it that when a problem is found (such as legislators tracking with large interests who give them money) the “solution” becomes a global constraint on everybody else? Also, it might surprise some folks that free speech is already being constrained among state workers under the guise of “ethics” requirements and restrictions on “agency information”.
- Ben Gazzara - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:58 pm:
What about just banning lobbying? Sorry lobsters, I know you can all make the case for your need and benefit to the world, but lobbying has so muddied the political waters that banning it outright seems the thing to do.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 12:59 pm:
If it applies to partners of licensed professionals as well then I can’t give to candidates either. Might save me some $$$..
Also would this prevent donations from PACs of money received by licensed professionals. If so the money we give every month to a professional PAC for my wife is also money back in the bank.
But from a free speech perspective, it sucks.
- Lil' Enchilada - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 1:09 pm:
Why not barn political contributions all together?!
No commercials, no yard signs, no pesky bulk mail coming to my house.
No fundraisers to attend. No one calling, asking for money for their campaigns.
- Lil' Enchilada - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 1:10 pm:
BAN political contributions. Not a good typer.
- Crafty Girl - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 1:19 pm:
No. Take a look at chapter 225 of the ILCS. You’d be saying that accupuncturitsts, athletic trainers, home health care workers, child care workers, clinical psychologists, social workers, dentists, dieticans, funeral directors, embalmers, audiologists, industrial hygenists, marriage and family therapists, doctors, osteopaths, anaraphts, nurses, occupational therapists, optometirst, torhotists, deorthists, podiatrists, prothestists, pharmacists, physical therapists, physcians assistants, boxers, respitory car practitioners, progessional counselers, speech-language pathologists, veterinarians, drug distributers, perfusionists, surgical assistants, surgical technologists, and genetic counselors should not be allowed to participate in the political process by supporting candidates with contributions. And that’s just the first page of the table of contents of chapter 225.
If you’d say that a “person” (i.e., a corporation, union, orgainzation) who can’t vote shouldn’t be allowed to contribute I’ll listen. But an individual shouldn’t loose the right to participate simply because he’s in a profession that requires a license.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 1:22 pm:
Crafty Girl,
A corporation, union, or any other grouping of individuals is nothing more than an association of those individuals, and association is also a protected right.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 1:28 pm:
I voted no. Normally, I support such a maneuver, but yesterday’s story about Exelon and ComEd exploiting the campaign finance loophole makes something like this proposal possibly moot. What would stop a licensed professional from donating to his or her state and federal associations, which could then possibly dump a truckload of cash on a leader’s doorstep or state party office? If such loopholes would be closed I might support this type of ban. However, I don’t see that happening.
- Lake County - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 1:37 pm:
No. Very simply stated, your local dental hygienist is professionally licensed. He/she deserves to have the same rights to donate to a political candidate as anyone else in the state.
- Anon - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 1:37 pm:
No. Campaign contributions are considered “free speech.” I believe the courts have ruled on that before (though not perhaps particularly for state licensed professionals).
If contributions are banned for those people, then they should be banned for state contractors, public sector unions, state employees, etc. as well.
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 1:40 pm:
I’m with Crafty Girl. People who can vote can give $$. Entities that can’t vote shouldn’t be able to donate to campaigns.
- Patrick - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 1:46 pm:
Once again, MrJM said it better than I ever could have.
Even putting the constitutionality issue aside, I don’t really think banning contributions in this manner would accomplish much. Any time we ramp up restrictions, we see contributors finding ways to skirt the law. Even despite tougher restrictions, the amount of money involved seems to increase with each passing year.
Clearly, there is a problem here, but maybe we need to look at some other solutions. I admit I don’t know what those other solutions may be.
- Hoy Pinot - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 2:07 pm:
With all of the free speech rhetoric here I’d expect everyone to also be opposed to the ban on contractors currently in effect.
- James from Wrigley - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 2:13 pm:
1) I think you can constitutionally limit hard money donations (those directly to a candidate) 2) An outright ban seems too much. I would support a limitation of $500 bucks or so.
- jake - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 2:36 pm:
The difference between good and bad is cause and effect. Good legislators are those who get contributions from interest groups because of what they advocate and how they vote. Bad legislators are those who advocate and vote a particular way because of the campaign contributions they get. You have to look closely to see the difference but it is very real. And none of them, including my favorites and anybody else’s, are all good or all bad. But some are mostly bad, and some are mostly good.
- The Cardinal - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 2:36 pm:
how ridiculous whats next ?
- Indeedy - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 2:38 pm:
I voted no. Still, I think there’s a difference between a professional license and gaming license. My state driver’s license does not, in itself, prevent you or anyone else from acquiring the same license (same for teacher, trucker, barber, banker). A gaming license, though, is a more limited franchise and might be restrictable without running afoul of constitutional issues.
- Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 2:56 pm:
As a licensed professional geologist, I abhor the idea that I would be unable to continue to wield the vast influence that earth scientists have in Springfield. I think I can speak on behalf of the cosmetologists, auctioneers, and dental hygienists as well.
Really this is beyond nonsense. When do we get back to JOBS?
- Colossus - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 3:18 pm:
Jake, I’m curious, how is it that the difference is determined? Because I can’t tell.
I voted not because of the wording. I think the idea of banning non-voting entities from giving money is worth exploring, though there entrenched interests that would keep that from happening. PACs, unions, all those “non-voting” entities would be kicked out of the process and as things stand, trying to pass this ban would be like bringing a supersoaker to a bazooka fight.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 4:15 pm:
No.
The only thing that will ever end the over-influence of big donors in public policy-making is public financing.
Every other measure:
1) Is window-dressing;
2) Benefits one particular class of donors over another;
3) Only makes election law lawyers wealthy in the search for new loopholes — a process which usually takes less than an election cycle;
4) Forestalls radical reform.
- D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 4:25 pm:
No, that’s a t-bagger simplistic idea. First Amendment rights prevent, too. But, they should all be public and available for review and Citizen’s United should be overturned.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 4:26 pm:
Yes!
It is now proven with this bit of news. Confirmed! With each dollar given to a state legislator from these evil people, these state legislators, once pure and virginal, become corrupted by 1%, according to the chart shown a long time ago by a good group of nice people.
You give them $100, and these once pure souls become slaves of the Devil!
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 4:27 pm:
Money from impure people corrupts legislative souls.
- Huh? - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 5:01 pm:
No. This idea is so stupid that only an intellectual would think of it.
- Non-retired guy - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 5:42 pm:
Only those licensed massage therapists should be banned. But I would be willing to reconsider if they all come to my house.
- tomhail - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 6:21 pm:
Absolutely not. Imagine telling my barber he is ineligible to give to his favorite candidate. He wouldn’t like it.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Tuesday, Oct 25, 11 @ 8:12 pm:
Answering w/o reading the other comments first. I voted yes. As a general rule I’m against government intervention / limitations, but here in Illinois we’ve seen what a state that is for sale turns out like.
While I understand the freedom of speech issues, the (generic) license group has already taken advantage of their right to access government and set up a protective scheme to ensure their (generic) business is not overrun with too many newcomers, which is just one of many forms of “rent seeking” from government.
From a freedom of speech issue, they don’t have to be in that (generic) business. If someone chose to go into it, they would know up front the limitations imposed and be making that choice with their eyes wide open. I realize the existing license holders didn’t get an up front choice, but they can always choose to leave; maybe there could be a clause grandfathering existing license holders for a period of time (5, 10 yrs?) to address that concern.