91 Comments - silent watcher - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:34 am: I agree with Brown that the jobs are different. And you’ve never seen Madigan campaign on a platform of transparency. - Amalia - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:36 am: especially after that twee comment on his powers, yes. - anon - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:37 am: Rauner should have Durkin propose a bill to require all legislative leaders to release their tax returns. But if Republicans insist on tax disclosure for legislators, how can they support a presidential candidate who refuses to release his? - RIJ - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:37 am: So how long before we demand the release of tax returns for all candidates for all elected positions? It could become ridiculous. - Dr X - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:38 am: Absolutely - transparency and a discussion about the power of property tax lawyers are good. - Huh? - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:39 am: “There’s a vast difference in the powers” of the offices of speaker and governor…” Mic drop - Amalia - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:39 am: vote and then comment. #s not near to matching. wonder why. - downstate commissioner - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:42 am: Voted NO. Have never seen the relevancy of a tax return to elected office; those who want to know how much a rich politician makes are just nosy… - MOON - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:43 am: I have always been of the opinion that no elected official or candidate should be required or asked to release their income tax returns. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:46 am: I’m quite certain Brown stepped on the message. He didn’t have to say anything, as others were raising the issue. Unforced error. - so... - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:47 am: Either require tax returns to be released by elected officials, or update the Statement of Economic Interests so it’s not such a joke. - How Ironic - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:47 am: No, it’s not necessary. Gov, yes. State legislature, no. - Oneman - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:48 am: Yes or at the very least income information. - working stiff - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:48 am: all politicians should release the info. if they make their money legally ……great. they shouldn’t have an issue making it public. - Dome Gnome - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:49 am: I voted no. Madigan’s one of 177 in his branch of government. I’d only want this if all 177 were expected to comply. - A guy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:50 am: I voted yes because they’d probably be fun to look at and hear him explain. Frankly, I don’t care. The IRS is there to look at irregularities. If they made it legally…it’s their business. Especially in their private sector positions. - AlfondoGonz - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:50 am: Voted yes but with there were more qualifiers. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:51 am: Voted “no”… “WHY?!?!?” A member of the General Assembly runs in a district, house or senate, and when elected, they bebkmd a member of a caucus that they themselves decide upon the leadership. If the Caucus wants to have criteria, that’s up to them. Legislative leadership and the rules of the chambers allow for members and leaderships to dictate what constitutes important information to decide in the caucuses their leaders. If Madigan ran for Governor, Mike Madigan, candidate for governor knows… tax returns are part and parcel with that run. So… Voted “No” - A guy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:52 am: ===Madigan’s one of 177 in his branch of government=== Yeah, sure he is. - RNUG - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:54 am: == Yes or at the very least income information == Any government salary or pension is already public. What is not automatically public is an individual’s investment or business income, or that of their spouse. - Big Muddy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:55 am: Voted yes. Only because if one does it all should do it. Honestly don’t care if Governor’s do or don’t do it but this double standard stuff is BS and Steve Brown knows it. All in or all out, don’t care either way but Steve, drop the holier than thou schtick. You’re better than that. - Deft Wing - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:58 am: –”Madigan is just one of 177 …”– That may be one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen in this space. Perhaps Mr. Brown can explain himself because others accuse him of “stepping in it” by even addressing the issue of Madigan having to release his tax rerturns (fat chance!). Actually, never mind as I’m certain Mr. Brown may have already replied via a CapFax moniker. - Casual observer - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:00 pm: I voted no. Solely because tax filings include information about the spouses financial status. I don’t think that’s fair to the spouse who may or may not be politically involved. - Lil Squeezy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:01 pm: I would have have voted no because I think the offices are different and you have to draw the line somewhere, but then I voted yes because Steve Brown couldn’t say no comment. - Stark - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:01 pm: Voted no. Unless we’re requiring all officials to disclose returns, this is ridiculous. In lieu of that, we have to rely on context. Trump: Good context to demand returns. Rauner: Same deal. Madigan? Now you sound silly, he’s only a couple billion dollars poorer. Give me a break. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:02 pm: Voted No. If Rauner never wanted this to be an issue, then he should have staunchly said no to begin with when he was campaignin’. Now that that door has been opened, it’s going to be very hard to walk it back. If he uses the “Madigan Won’t” excuse, well… that’s just weak. - ChicagoVinny - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:03 pm: Voted ‘no’. Even politicians have a right to privacy, and it’s only rare when the interests of the public outweigh that right to privacy. The head of the executive branch has a large amount of power concentrated in one person, so the public has an interest in more detailed accounting of his personal finances. The Speaker is not an office selected by voters directly. Now if the House wanted to require candidates for the Speaker share tax returns with House members who vote on them, I suppose I’d be ok with that, but I doubt they really care. - Flynn's mom - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:03 pm: I voted no. What will it prove? Why every time a question is asked of the governor is it twisted to “what about Madigan”? It’s getting so old. - AlfondoGonz - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:03 pm: To those of who you think (or, as I’m sure you’d put it, “know”) that Madigan is not 1 of 177, do you care to explain? - Ron Burgundy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:03 pm: No, but in my opinion if you don’t do it, you lose your right to complain if someone else doesn’t. - Shemp - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:04 pm: so wrote “Either require tax returns to be released by elected officials, or update the Statement of Economic Interests so it’s not such a joke.” I agree. And what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Either both or neither. - hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:05 pm: Such a dumb fight for Team Madigan to pick if he has no intention of releasing his returns. Let Dems who do release those returns hit Rauner on it. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:05 pm: Yes but only if they make claims that can be proven with the release of the returns like “I’ve given millions to charity” etc - Clark - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:05 pm: Voted yes out of sheer curiosity - Ron Burgundy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:06 pm: –“There’s a vast difference in the powers” of the offices of speaker and governor…– Yeah, and which way does that difference cut? I think its arguable… - Jocko - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:08 pm: Voted YES. Taxes are one of the few institutions that connect rich and poor alike. I don’t need the itemized return, but I’d like to know their percentages as a function of income (and level of charity). - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:10 pm: If curiosity is justification for a yes vote, I suppose everyone who voted yes wouldn’t complain if their neighbor asked to see their 1040 EZ? Right? Right? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:11 pm: ===and level of charity=== Some folks don’t deduct their contributions. I never have. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:12 pm: ===is it twisted to “what about Madigan”?=== Because Madigan’s guy piled on yesterday. Good for the goose… etc. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:13 pm: Since when is a legislative official a STATEWIDE official like a governor? Who cannot understand this basic difference? Why would the same political party which champions the separation of powers suddenly go completely daft when it comes to the current speaker of the House? - WhoKnew - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:13 pm: Voted no. Thought it kinda’ cute that Mr. Brown thought the bill, if introduced, could possibly even see the light of day! Buried in Commitee in 3, 2, 1 …/s - NoGifts - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:14 pm: I don’t think their income tax return are relevant to anyone but the IRS and the IDR. - Earnest - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:14 pm: I voted ‘no.’ Same reasoning I had yesterday for Rauner–we have plenty of data on his actions over his terms in office to evaluate his performance. I do think that presidential and gubernatorial candidates should release their income tax prior to being elected for the offices. These are powerful positions and I think voters need that information about potential conflicts of interest. In terms of legislative leaders, it doesn’t interest me. - yinn - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:14 pm: I voted no, because I’d rather see the Statement of Economic Interest improved and posted online instead of our having to make FOIA requests for them. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:19 pm: I also agree, had Steve Brown stayed away from the discussion, there would be no discussion about the Speaker and his taxes. In these instances, unless it is common practice to disclose, or the Speaker on his own routinely disclosed, highlighting a practice that Brown is calling different doesn’t help dismiss the curiosity. - Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:19 pm: Voted yes. Brown stepped in it yesterday, dragging his client in with him. Since many feel the Speaker of the House is more power than the Governor, he should disclose. - downstater - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:23 pm: –silent watcher - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 11:34 am: And you’ve never seen Madigan campaign on a platform of transparency.– That’s a laughable argument. Madigan is one of the most powerful politicians in America. He should disclose his taxes. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:24 pm: ===Since many feel the Speaker of the House is more power than the Governor, he should disclose.=== - Louis G Atsaves - “Many”… are you part of that “many” You brought it up. - Johnny Tractor - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:26 pm: Nope - not relevant to whether it means he’s a good Speaker or a good state rep. See: Pat Quinn - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:27 pm: ===Madigan is one of the most powerful politicians in America=== According to Dan Proft, the mythology of Speaker Madigan is just that, mythology. I do have a two-fer sale going on Fire Madigan coffee mugs, however… - wordslinger - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:28 pm: Governor, by far, is the most powerful office in the state. And Madigan is certainly not the all-powerful Oz the hysterics would have you believe. That’s simply not possible with the separation of powers. But it’s silly to pretend that any Speaker, especially the current one, is just one of 177. The greatest power of the position is the ability to block any legislation from even being considered, until it’s shaped how you like it. Neither Rauner or Madigan is required to release his taxes. But if Madigan via Brown believes Rauner is obligated to, then he doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to not releasing his own. Madigan hasn’t “controlled” the state as Speaker, but he’s not a humble shoeshine boy, either. - Meh - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:35 pm: I’m conflicted, but leaning no. I understand why the executive leader would release their tax return. But all 4 legislative leaders? Do we frown upon legislators who are not wealthy? - anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:39 pm: Amalia @ 1139; I voted NO. All my reasons have been presented already by other posters…but…yes, if you vote, you should say why. There. Done. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:45 pm: Yes. Caesars wife should be above suspicion - Federalist - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:46 pm: The Governor, the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate are very powerful positions that control how this state is run. Anyone who states that only the Governor should release their tax returns is being disingenuous. ALL should release their tax returns. - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:47 pm: I voted yes. We need to see tax returns, because they show us info that help us determine the quality and character of a powerful political person. In Rauner’s case, we need to see how much money he makes, since he has extracted concessions out of those who can so much less afford them than he can. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:49 pm: Voted “No”- See Wordslinger’s comments @12:28. - Keyser Soze - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:50 pm: The public release of tax returns became trendy in the wake of Watergate. I opposed the practice then, and oppose it now. A citizen’s finances are a private matter. Running for office carries its own weight of public scrutiny. A spotlight on one’s character and integrity should be sufficient for this purpose. - Lil Squeezy - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:50 pm: “Do we frown upon legislators who are not wealthy?” Yes we do. This “part time” position is only “part time” for people in professions that can allow for it. Not all of those professions are worked by wealthy people but certainly most established lawyers are better off than the rest of the public. Voters (or the political parties) then appreciate, or now expect, that a newly elected legislator will opt out of GARS. Not many people are going to want to quit their job for another job with no job security and no retirement unless they have some wealth. There are many legislators who are not wealthy but the system is setup to discourage those without some wealth from running. Now more than ever, remember legislators opting out of GARS is a recent development. - AlfondoGonz - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:52 pm: “The Governor, the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate are very powerful positions that control how this state is run.” The Speaker of the Senate is so powerful, I’ve never even heard him mentioned until right now. - DuPage Saint - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:56 pm: Voted no. I agree economic interest statement should be stronger and have teeth. Multi millionaires who made it in private industry don’t bother me as much as the millionaires that made it some how on public payroll. I think Blago released his. And maybe George Ryan and that worked well - RNUG - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:57 pm: == vote and then comment. #s not near to matching. wonder why. == I think it’s typical that only about 10% of the voters also comment. - Anon - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 12:59 pm: I voted yes — not because I think it’s a good idea for legislators to have to release their taxes. I voted yes because as long as there is nothing incredibly controversial in Madigan’s tax return, I think it would immediately magnify pressure on Bruce Rauner. Further — Rauner doesn’t release any meaningful tax documentation. There were no federal schedules and no state schedules. At the very least, the guy could provide a copy of his Schedule CR and his Schedule ICR, if not his entire Illinois filing, including any K-1-P or K-1-T forms that he is claiming on his return. The stuff Rauner does publish just confirms he’s rich. It doesn’t do a whole lot else. - Ahoy! - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:04 pm: –Madigan spokesman Steve Brown says the speaker “complies with all of the applicable law. If someone wants to change (the law), file a bill and we’ll have a debate.”– They won’t have a debate, they file it in Rules and it won’t see the light of day. I know Madigan’s camp has always been dodgy but now they are starting to outright lie. The pressure might be getting to them. To the Question, I voted yes because they were demanding it of someone else. In general I don’t care about this and don’t think we should demand this kind of information. I believe in the right to privacy even among public officials, but if you’re going to want it from someone else then you should lead by example. - ChrisB - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:04 pm: Yes. Goose, gander, etc. - Chicagonk - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:05 pm: Voted No - I’m not sure what point it would prove. - Lt Guv - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:07 pm: Brown screwed up. Most voters have never heard of this kerfluffle. If anyone really care, introduce a bill in the next session. - Mad Brown - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:07 pm: I voted no. Reasons have been explained, by others. If you release them once, you have to keep up, otherwise what’s being hidden from one year to the next. Ask Madigan’s district if he should release them. They’re the ones who vote him. We all vote for Gov. - RIJ - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:18 pm: How about require CEO’s from all publicly traded companies be required to release their tax returns? I’d be much more interested in those returns than Mike Madigan’s. - Libertas - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:18 pm: Voted Yes - If Madigan’s staff is interested in financial transparency for elected officials, he should lead the charge. - Libertas - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:20 pm: Wordslinger - Well Said! - phocion - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:20 pm: Agree completely with Wordslinger @12:28. Not to mention Pot/Kettle…Goose/Gander. And all that. Steve Brown screwed up and brought more negative attention to his boss than to his intended target. Brown is having an off year, actually. Maybe he needs a long vacation. Frankly, I wouldn’t care about either returns being made public, but the rank hypocrisy made me vote yes. - Steve Rogers - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:21 pm: @yinn 12:14: Statements of Economic Interest ARE already posted online: http://www.ilsos.gov/economicinterest/economicinterest - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:28 pm: The question is moot. Madigan was asked and said no. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t care if that makes him look bad, and I’m certain none of the complaints here are going to change his mind. - Madigan's Lapdog - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:39 pm: Voted Yes, as His lapdog I am concerned that I may be missing out on some treats. I feel certain He’s been holding out. - siriusly - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 1:46 pm: I voted no. BUT. The state currently has a state of economic interests policy that requires all state and local officials and department directors to file a disclosure of their economic interests. In theory this disclosure should help with transparency and also alert anyone to potential conflicts of interest as well as financial interests. The problem is that this system is a voluntary disclosure (with penalties) and the form and the system itself are quite antiquated. Income tax disclosure is an odd thing to expect for any candidate for Governor, although I like it for President. I don’t care if Rauner shows us his taxes or not - but the GA and the Governor should really look at the statements of economic interests and think about strengthening that entire thing - it’s good policy - but it’s a weak setup. - Whatever - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:12 pm: Voted no. If we want financial information from candidates or public officials, we should mandate disclosure of the precise information we want, not just ask to see returns that contain a bunch of information we don’t want or need and don’t contain some things we do want, such as investments in stock that were simply held during the year or who are the other partners in a business are. Tax returns aren’t that easy to decipher anyway. - Rabid - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:21 pm: No I wouldn’t want to know if business partners made money off Illinois/ - Matthew Vernau - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:33 pm: Voted Yes. Maybe everybody’s income tax returns should be public record. We want them done right and those we do business with should know if we are reporting everything. Might also be a good idea to list everyone receiving public benefits. It is not fair that I am listed as a recipient of CRP money but others receiving benefits from USDA are not. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:35 pm: hi my name is mat and i voted yes for fun - Commonsense in Illinois - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:37 pm: I voted NO. Releasing tax returns means nothing. It won’t change a single vote. It’s just something the media uses to raise suspicions on candidate that don’t or won’t play that game. Nobody has the right to see my or anyone else’s tax returns. Let’s get back to issues that mean something, please. - wondering - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 2:37 pm: sorry, I inferred, did not state, voted no, for the reason given - Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 3:20 pm: Voted yes. Everyone running for the legislature should in my opinion. The more info available, the better choices the electorate can make. - Michael Westen - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 3:26 pm: No. Patently absurd. Federal government and 49 other states do not require legislative leaders to release tax returns. This is the category you want to be first in the nation in? - Steve - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 3:31 pm: All lawyers in the state legislature should be forced to list all of their clients. - BK Bro - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 3:36 pm: The obsession with income tax returns of political candidates is yet another distraction from the serious issues facing the state. IL is shedding jobs, the government is barely running, and the unresolved fiscal problems continue to grow. At this point, why would anything else matter? - walker - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 4:17 pm: I’ll go with Michael Westen: “No. Patently absurd.” I voted No on Rauner releasing his at this time also. - Anon - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 4:23 pm: All four caucus leaders should! - Postbot 5999 - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 4:35 pm: All tax info should be private and confidential. The only use for this information is to fuel the fires of the class warriors. - Belle - Wednesday, Nov 2, 16 @ 5:04 pm: Voted yes. I want to see how much money he has, just curious as I am sure many of my fellow Illinoisans feel the same. The Trump controversy has inspired curiosity about how much money these people generate. - Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 3, 16 @ 12:51 am: Gidwitz, Proft & Schneider are part of the problem with the ILGOP. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.