69 Comments - SKI - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:31 pm: No - we just saw a law passed that prohibited salary history from being disclosed by job applicants. Lobbying is a profession. Forcing disclosure of their private salary would allow salaries to be undercut, and potentially cause a race to the bottom lowering the quality of lobbyists under the dome. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:35 pm: So a politician gets arrested for bribery and lobbyists now have to disclose more information. OK. But tell me how that solves the problem of elected officials breaking the law? - Just Said - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:37 pm: Because Cullerton,Sandavol,Arroyo,Link - Been There - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:39 pm: I would prefer they would not require. Most of the time you can figure out who is getting what if you dig into it. Especially those representing gov agencies, municipalities or non-profits. But as with all things what you are supposed to be paid and when you get paid are two different things. If you are allowed to report what your contract is supposed to be for that’s ok. If, as a lot of clients do, they send you a couple of months at a time that can skew the reality and make it look like you are making a lot more than you are. - BigLou - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:40 pm: I don’t think they need to disclose compensation. BUT, if an elected offical is also a lobbyist they need to disclos that when running for office or if after taking office they start acting as a lobbyist they need to inform their district. - NotRich - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:40 pm: I know lobbyists in the City that are lawyers, they are able to disguise some of their lobbying fees as “legal services”..so when you look at the City lobbyist disclosures, you don’t get a true picture.. all this does is create an avenue for honest people to get themselves in trouble..I guess I could say client X pays me $1 a year to lobby, the rest is paid to me for my expert advise.. - NotRich - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:41 pm: “JUST SAID”: Link was never a lobbyist.. - Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:42 pm: What SKI said. And there are already provisions that prevent a lobbyist pay from being pro-rated on if they pass or kill a bill. At some point you have to accept crooks are going to be crooks no matter what rules you pass. Just because I chose a career as a lobbyist doesn’t mean I should be assumed to be a crook or that the entire world should know what my income is. If POTUS can’t be forced to disclose his income, why should I have to. More overkill that won’t mean a thing. - Not Again - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:42 pm: Better question IMO is why can’t the SoS office update the lobbyist website to make the current disclosures more transparent? - NIref - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:43 pm: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” - Brandeis The public cause is best served when the process is open and transparent. - Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:47 pm: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” - Brandeis “The public cause is best served when the process is open and transparent.” Good start with the President than you can talk to me me about it being a public cause to know my income. - Juvenal - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:48 pm: I voted No. Pritzker still has not released documents detailing how much he is paying his staff on the side or where that money is coming from. This is a Blago move. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:48 pm: There is a good point to the legislation barring such questions for interviews, however, this is not an interview, this is a measure of the cost of access through lobbying, and disclosing relationships with monetary value for the business being done. I still vote no. These are not publicly held lobbying firms or companies. If there was Illinois legislation “itemizing” lobbying efforts in any way where such work requires registering as lobbying, and all that entails, maybe make those investments public. Kind of a back door, but in an example it would hold ComEd more responsible to disclose than those they are hiring, which I think is the point of the exercise via what the G seems to be most interested anyway. - SaulGoodman - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:49 pm: No. What’s the rationale? What corruption would have been stopped if we knew how much lobbyists are paid? What corruption will it stop now? - Unpopular - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:52 pm: For what reason? This is motion without action. - Anon - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:53 pm: I agree with Saul - what past corruption would have been avoided had we known the *amount* paid to a lobbyist? Instead, start by banning state legislators from acting as lobbyists (or better, preclude outside employment). - lake county democrat - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:57 pm: No (though I didn’t like the legislation baring questions about salaries either), in-part because I think “full disclosure” is often used to evade real reform. - noop - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:58 pm: No. This is just a press pop. There’s ways around it and it wouldn’t have prevented the current situation. As was already said, a ban on legislators serving as lobbyists would actually make a difference. - Anon 1:57 - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:59 pm: Not Rich: You are missing the point - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 1:59 pm: == all this does is create an avenue for honest people to get themselves in trouble..== lol, I bet that’s what trump says about demands to release his tax returns To the post: yes, yes they should. Why? Because it causes lobbyists and the corporations that pay them to squirm. Anything that causes discomfort within those two groups is most likely good for the taxpayer. And if that isn’t reason enough for you, then because public employee salaries are disclosed by law. If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the contract lobbyist - Former Candidate on the Ballot - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:01 pm: No - This will not stop corruption, and in fact might enhance it as those who are willing to be corrupt might go to greater lengths to not properly disclose their compensation. - Downstate Illinois - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:02 pm: No. Petitioning lawmakers is a basic right. Paying someone to represent you to lawmakers is perfectly fine. Basic registration is constitutionally dubious as it is. - just my thoughts - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:04 pm: “Lobbying” is many different things. The definition in the statute is very broad. Why should the person working at the non-profit who happens to come to Springfield to lobby for a bill have their salary publicly disclosed? How is that going to stop corruption? Public disclosure of fees could lead to more corruption. As it is now, members and staff assume lobbyists make lots of money and they ask them for things such as lunch/dinner and political contributions. If lobbyists contract fees are disclosed, what prohibits a member/staffer from asking for more because they now know exactly how much a lobbyist is making. I can hear it now - “You gave me a $5,000 contribution but you made $10,000 a month for Com Ed? What’s the deal?” - NotRich - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:05 pm: Lester Holt: I AM NOT a public employee.. if you think disclosing private citizens salaries is necessary.. here is your chance.. tell us HOW MUCH YOU MAKE.. - reader - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:06 pm: If you want to get at the heart of the problem require legislators and constitutional officers to disclose gifts and compensation they receive from any source. Report every cup of coffee, every lunch, every ticket to a game. Show us who is actually trying to influence legislators. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:08 pm: Some who have commented thus far are viewing it more from the perspective of the individual lobbyist who is more concerned about downward pressure on retainers, but this is also about measuring the aggregate power and influence of an organization, such as a utility or other entity to influence how laws are made. While one may be curious how much Lobbyist A may make on a contract on behalf of Client A, that is inside baseball. The bigger issue is how much Client A is spending in total to influence the system using Lobbyist A, Lobbyist B, and others. We already disclose campaign finance contributions to bring sunlight to that part of how entities (and individuals) attempt to influence public policy and attempt to force the collection of employer data. What would make sense, too, is aggregating the data. Client entity, how much they are spending, how much they are contributing, how much their senior employees and affiliated PACs are contributing, etc. That’s how you get a step or two closer to true transparency… - Poster #782 - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:08 pm: This would only make it life easier for the bad actors by making things more difficult for the good actors. Enforcing laws that already exist would solve a problem. Creating a new regulatory hurdle for honest actors only benefits those who are going to ignore the law anyway. Learn from the past. Don’t repeat Blago era mistakes. - reader - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:08 pm: Lester Holt: Not every “lobbyist” is a contract lobbyist. Not every lobbyist works for a corporation. Not every entity hiring a lobbyist is looking for something from government. You know this. Come on, man. - Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:09 pm: You want address this issue that makes the most impact? Ban current lawmakers and current staff of the four caucus’ from lobbying for five years after leaving office or staff. It works that way for most current state agency upper staff, make it apply to everyone. That will do more to fix this than anything. - Closing loopholes - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:15 pm: I reluctantly vote yes, because its such small potatoes; if that’s the opening swing, it’s ridiculous. They should also look to close the revolving door on staff to lobbying. It’s more impactful and shouldn’t be a hard lift. The only reason it’s hard is because the GA doesn’t want to put those limits on itself. It’s also a great first step to limiting outside employment by legislators, like how they shouldn’t be allowed to lobby other government entities for *money*. - southsider - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:15 pm: == - Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:09 pm: You want address this issue that makes the most impact? Ban current lawmakers and current staff of the four caucus’ from lobbying for five years after leaving office or staff. It works that way for most current state agency upper staff, make it apply to everyone. That will do more to fix this than anything. == Sounds like a good idea, but analyze the impact of this. White men make up the overwhelming majority of lobbyists. Women and minorities now make up a good number, but nowhere near proportionally and most of those are former staffers. If you shut off the employment opportunities for staff, you’re shutting down the ability of women and minorities to leave staff and do something that still impacts government. The old white guys win. Again. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:17 pm: southsider makes a good point. Simple solutions usually aren’t. - howdy - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:18 pm: There are many areas of the law that require the disclosure and approval by a court of the fees of lawyers-ie. bankruptcy, family law, personal injury law has limits imposed by the legislature. What makes lobbying a protective activity. They are not acting generally for the public good-they are using their influence to speak for others who in many cases could speak for themselves. It would be fascinating to see what Excelon pays for lobbying versus say Public Housing or Conservation people. - Don't Bloc Me In - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:19 pm: No. A first reaction might be to say yes out of anger and frustration. But, disclosing lobbyists salaries solves nothing. I’m much more interested in what effects those lobbyists are having in our legislature. In addition, no one in elected office should ever be a lobbyist simultaneously. - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:22 pm: I’m going to withhold judgment until the governor unveils or at least leaks his proposal. I’m not sure how people translated “more disclosure” to mean “disclose your compensation.” - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:24 pm: But to be clear, in general I believe more disclosure is better…as long as it reveals something relevant to the problem at hand. And yea, legislators should be banned from lobbying. - Wilson - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:24 pm: It’s politics. You want to address the recent issue, ban legislators from lobbying. - reporters - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:29 pm: what about some type of guidelines as to what the press can report? some type of reporting to substantiate - Chicagonk - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:31 pm: I don’t see what this would accomplish. Instead, start with banning legislators from doing paid lobbying. Also the parties should step up their internal due diligence on candidates (especially when they are appointing candidates to fill vacant seats) and stop picking hacks to fill vacancies. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:32 pm: I think the question should actually be: should legislators with a job outside of the GA be required to disclose their salary. The answer to that question should be “yes”. It would be telling to look at salaries vs. Titles and compare that with their votes. My guess is there would be many raised eyebrows. - Henry VIII - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:34 pm: No, excessive regulation is creating a very slippery slope and eroding basic first amendment freedoms. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/317618-possible-expansion-of-lobbying-restrictions-threaten-first “Still, the push to regulate these broader activities as lobbying continues. Last week, the National Institute for Lobbying, a lobbyist trade group, proposed regulating as lobbyists “public relations firms, political strategists, pollsters, advertising and media consultants, grassroots and coalition specialists, Internet and digital media experts and others who work to influence public policy decisions on behalf of their clients.” As policy advocacy increasingly shifts to these avenues, we should recognize this proposal for what it is: a few traditional lobbyists attempting to impose the same regulatory burdens that apply to them on other policy professionals.” - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:38 pm: == tell us HOW MUCH YOU MAKE..== Depends on the job, but usually between $20 - $30 an hour plus parts. Sometimes a travel fee if it’s very far from my shop. Sometimes I charge less, if it looks like the person could use a break. See, I actually work for a living. With my hands. What I don’t do is stand around the rail on the third floor of the Capitol, or in area bars, looking to convince politicians as to why they should give my current employer special deals that the average taxpayer doesn’t get. And then throw a giant hissy fit when someone thinks it would be a good idea to know exactly how much it costs to, um, “persuade” people like Arroyo or Sandoval to vote for those special deals. I’m glad to see that JB apparently agrees with me. - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:47 pm: == You know this. Come on, man.== I do, reader, I do. But if it’s done by the city of Chicago, why not for by state of Illinois? Beyond that, if the state has to - by law - tell me how much some receptionist working at Human Services or Corrections is making, how can anyone say with a straight face that lobbyists (contract or otherwise) shouldn’t be held to the same standard? - Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:48 pm: “What I don’t do is stand around the rail on the third floor of the Capitol, or in area bars, looking to convince politicians as to why they should give my current employer special deals that the average taxpayer doesn’t get. And then throw a giant hissy fit when someone thinks it would be a good idea to know exactly how much it costs to, um, “persuade” people like Arroyo or Sandoval to vote for those special deals. I’m glad to see that JB apparently agrees with me.” Lester you just proved you have no clue, none about what lobbyist do. Period, your lack of knowledge about this issue is only surpassed by your willingness to prove it. - NotRich - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 2:58 pm: lester: that my friend is not full disclosure.. you are evading the point you are advocating for.. please provide: full name: address: and exact amount and the name of each paying customer.. thank you - JS Mill - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:03 pm: I don’t care what lobbyists make so “No”. I care about the goodies they disperse to lawmakers and public officials (like me) and the hiring of family and other sweatheart unethical stuff. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:04 pm: ===What I don’t do is stand around the rail on the third floor of the Capitol, or in area bars=== You think that’s what they do? - ILPundit - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:04 pm: As a lobbyist, my response is…meh. I mean, it’s fine. That said, it will have no real impact and does absolutely nothing to address the actual issue we are seeing in the unfolding corruption scandal. So, by that metric, it really is the perfect Illinois state government response. - Joe Bidenopolous - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:09 pm: ===So a politician gets arrested for bribery and lobbyists now have to disclose more information. OK. But tell me how that solves the problem of elected officials breaking the law?=== I’ll give my props to 47th and second his statement. As an aside, if I’m retained as a lobbyist/consultant and I only spend 10% of my time on that client actually lobbying, that’s probably all I’d have to report - at least, that’s the way it works in the city. Easy to work around. I still voted NO because this does nothing to curb bad behavior by pols - Just Observing - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:16 pm: It sounds like a good, reform-minded idea if you don’t think too hard about it. - Just Observing - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:21 pm: === But if it’s done by the city of Chicago, why not for by state of Illinois? === What does one thing have to do with the other? So, if any one of Illinois’ 1,300 municipalities pass a law, that is good enough reason for the state to pass an identical law? === What makes lobbying a protective activity. === The U.S. Constitution. === tell me how much some receptionist working at Human Services or Corrections is making, how can anyone say with a straight face that lobbyists (contract or otherwise) shouldn’t be held to the same standard? === Umm… because the former is a public official, the latter is not. - Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:23 pm: Yes. As long as elected officials can lobby as a side job, disclosure would identify them (who knew Arroyo was getting paid to lobby local governments?). - Dog Bites Man - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:24 pm: In today’s news: “A group of more than 30 South and West side ministers is complaining that Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s proposed ride-share tax increase will hurt low-income riders and drivers, but city officials dispute the claim. “Ride-share has truly been a blessing,” said the Rev. Walter Turner of New Spiritual Light Missionary Baptist Church in the South Shore neighborhood, at a news conference on Tuesday. Turner said the proposed fee hike would have a “major impact” on people trying to get to doctor visits or buy groceries. “Do not tax our people,” said Turner, who was among the group of ministers who signed a letter to Lightfoot complaining about the fees. The letter was delivered during City Council budget hearings that included questioning of officials from the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection, which oversees ride-share services.” https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/transportation/ct-biz-ministers-ride-share-taxes-south-side-west-side-20191106-viofqa3kt5db7nwn2xw6bliod4-story.html If you believe this letter happened spontaneously, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell to you, cheap. - Eire17 - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:25 pm: No. How does that fix the problem of a dishonest State Rep trying to bribe a State Sen who cheated on his taxes? - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:27 pm: ==You think that’s what they do?== No, of course not. Well aware that they do a while lot more than that, and like reader implies, not all lobbyists work for big companies. Many do good work for non-profits and the like that deserve to have their views heard by lawmakers. But frankly, NotRich kinda comes off as a jerk who thinks that lobbyists just too important to be held to the same standards as the state workers who have their salaries published for all Illinoisans to see. You know the guy, the one in the nice suit at the Capitol who bumps pages out of the way to get into the elevator first or tells the legislative secretary what to do as if he were the elected official. After his comment about how he’s going to game the system, I honestly couldn’t pass up the chance to give him a hard time. It was just too good an opportunity. - Roman - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:30 pm: I voted no. The Arroyo and Sandoval scandals appear related to their efforts to make money on their side gigs. How about limiting those activities? A commission in New York recently raised legislator salaries and placed restrictions on outside income, (though it’s been derailed by the courts.) That’s what Illinois should be looking at. Let legislators choose between a higher salary and no outside income, or their current salary with much more disclosure requirements. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:43 pm: ===But frankly, NotRich kinda comes off as a jerk=== He is. lol - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 3:48 pm: ===the one in the nice suit at the Capitol who bumps pages out of the way to get into the elevator first=== That’s not him. Nice suit, maybe, but not the other stuff. - Joe Bidenopolous - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 4:01 pm: Just as an aside, there are lobbyists who game the system both ways on income. There are some who report the bare minimum…”well, I spent 3% of my time lobbying so I’m reporting 3% of the retainer.” And then there are others - not naming names but easy enough to figure out - who report literally every cent they receive from clients even if they did nothing with the city, in order to goose their publicly-reported info to make them look more powerful than they are. - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 4:09 pm: == Lester you just proved you have no clue, none about what lobbyist do. Period, your lack of knowledge about this issue is only surpassed by your willingness to prove it.== I will have you know that I’m more than willing to prove my lack of knowledge on any number of issues, not just this one. I do so here practically every day. People complain here all the time about stuff they have no knowledge about, but you don’t see me getting the vapors over it because it’s public policy and your opinion on public policy is no more or less valid than is OW’s or 47th’s or mine or anyone else’s. Lighten up, Francis - Evan - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 4:22 pm: ==group of ministers who signed a letter to Lightfoot complaining about the fees== And we’ll never get any details on this lobbying activity because, you guessed it, there is an exemption in the Chicago lobbying ordinance for religious activities… - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 4:23 pm: ===And we’ll never get any details on this lobbying activity=== That’s not lobbying activity. That’s activism. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 7:59 pm: No. Potential employers are banned from inquiring about salary history for good reason. Makes no sense to carve out one group. - Blue Dog Dem - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 8:09 pm: Yes. Absolutely yes. - SAP - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 8:15 pm: So a salaried trade association employee who mostly does legal work for her employer but also spends a small portion of time lobbying has to report what, the entire salary? The lobbying portion, which is determined how? And this person has to disclose her salary, but the rest of the employees don’t, which is uncomfortable at best. - Elmer Keith - Wednesday, Nov 6, 19 @ 9:59 pm: Downstate Illinois @ 2:02 pm- “Paying someone to represent you to lawmakers is perfectly fine. Basic registration is constitutionally dubious as it is.” This comment shows a condescening mentality. Of the 12 million people in Illinois, not many can afford to take time off to drive to Springfield, much less pay someone else to represent us. I’m in that group, the little people who pay the taxes. I’m for criminal background checks on lobbyists also. When I was trying to figure out why NRA contract lobbyist Todd Vandermyde put the worst language in Rep. Brandon Phelps concealed carry bill, I came across shady criminal history information. Yes, lobbyists should have to disclose salary, they are influencing public policy that affects millions of people. - observing - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 6:42 am: A better first start would be to not allow state officials or legislators to lobby local governments. The clients could be paying for a no-show lobbyist to influence decisions at the state level. - Elliott Ness - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 6:58 am: This is at the very least nibbling around the edges…JB should offer some REAL reform ideas starting with a prohibition on legislative compensation from any lobby organization or outside income for consulting, etc..enhanced penalties for failing to report would also be a good idea - Dozer - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 9:12 am: terrible idea…a classic solution in search of a problem. If JB wants to go big prohibit electeds from lobbying IL local government. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.