* Former Deputy Governor Bradley Tusk writing in the Tribune…
I have no particular desire to see former Gov. Rod Blagojevich released early from his 14-year prison sentence. And despite claims about bias by U.S. District Judge James Zagel, as someone who testified in both of Blagojevich’s corruption trials I found Zagel to be consistently fair, objective and reasonable.
Nineteen Illinois politicians signed a letter asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Blagojevich’s case — and while I don’t see Rod’s fate as an especially valuable use of the court’s time, I do agree that virtually everyone working at high levels of government and politics across the nation could use clearer guidance as to what is legal and what isn’t.
The petitioners argue that the court needs to “distinguish the lawful solicitation and donation of campaign contributions from criminal violations of federal extortion, bribery and fraud laws.”
They have a point. For as long as politicians are allowed to freely solicit money for their political campaigns, there is always going to be an intersection of campaign donations, taxpayer funds and government spending. Giving elected officials, their government staff, their campaign staff and donors abundantly clear rules and guidance can only help reduce corruption, change the social norms around pay-to-play politics (especially in Illinois, where it’s still seen as a cost of doing business), and give the taxpayers far more confidence that the system is corruption-free.
I see this frequently in my work as a venture capitalist. I founded a firm that works with and invests in startups in a variety of regulated industries. My company does business with virtually every state, every major city and the federal government, so I’ve seen how things work pretty much everywhere. Time after time, the entrenched interests our startups are disrupting try to use pay-to-play politics and campaign donations to stifle competition, limit innovation and preserve the status quo.
Pay-to-play politics is a potent threat to innovation, and the lack of clarity about what is allowed and what isn’t only makes things worse.
Go read the rest.
- Ghost - Friday, Dec 8, 17 @ 12:20 pm:
The first amendment and current law means there can be no brite line guidance.
More useful would be better laws. First make false political statents illegal like in austaralia and England. Get some crap off the air. Second require any organization the supports or opposes a candidate to disclose all financial backers and interests before they can run ads.
- Happy Retiree - Friday, Dec 8, 17 @ 12:46 pm:
It’s easy. Let me help out…
1) Don’t accept a campaign donation if it comes with strings attached - it’s illegal.
2) If a campaign donor approaches you after you’ve won the election asking for a contract, the answer is no because it would be inappropriate and illegal.
How is this not clear?
- RNUG - Friday, Dec 8, 17 @ 1:19 pm:
You can ask, but it is unlikely any court is going to draw up a comprehensive list of rules. They view that as the job of the Legislature …. and rightfully so.
- wordslinger - Friday, Dec 8, 17 @ 2:46 pm:
–I have no particular desire to see former Gov. Rod Blagojevich released early from his 14-year prison sentence.–
I bet you don’t. You see him coming, you better run.
- old time golfer - Friday, Dec 8, 17 @ 3:30 pm:
Mr Tusk is now making a lot of money in the private sector because of all his connections he made in Blago’s administration the least he could do is show some sympathy for the guy. And Mr Tusk, even most of his ardent haters think the Judge and the sentence was harsh….
- Chicago J - Friday, Dec 8, 17 @ 3:48 pm:
@golfer - Please speak for yourself. You don’t speak for me.
- Juice - Friday, Dec 8, 17 @ 4:01 pm:
old time golfer, I think his connections to Michael Bloomberg have had a much larger impact on him making money in the private sector than anything he did for Blagojevich.