33 Comments - {Sigh} - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 11:36 am: =· House Bill 3947 would ban members of the General Assembly, their spouses, and immediate live-in family members from performing paid lobbying work with local government units= This should also include consulting and communications contracts. - Chito - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 11:40 am: Who pays for the special elections their resolution mandates? - Not for Nothing - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 11:44 am: Don’t get the good gov obsession with vacancy filling. Elections cost money and time and resources. Maybe say that the respective house has to approve a vacancy with a 2/3 vote. And the committee vote thing is a rule change disguised as a statute. Not saying the idea is bad but if you start codifying rules, that cuts both ways. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 11:46 am: ===Elections cost money and time and resources=== Plenty of other states do it this way. ===And the committee vote thing is a rule change disguised as a statute=== It’s a resolution, not a bill. - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 11:46 am: Yeah, HR 588 has no place here. It doesn’t address pols behaving badly, it’s just an attempt by Republicans to circumvent House rules and do what they couldn’t at the ballot box. Elections have consequences - if they want to change the rules, do better there. - southsider - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 11:54 am: HB3947 does more than ban lobbying units of local government. It also prohibits members of the General Assembly from receiving compensation for any communications with any official of any unit of local government and school districts if the purpose of the communication is to influence action. Read literally, this would prevent a member receiving compensation for being a State Rep/Senator from calling any of their towns and asking them to take action. A member would be prohibited from calling an alderman to urge them to vote against a proposed ordinance. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 11:55 am: I have gone back and forth on appointments vs. elections. The appointment allows immediate representation with the vacancy time lowered. The election allows the districts to have *their* say, and even a low turnout situation, it’s still process. The mere hint of impropriety is the fear of an appointment, so if it helps with election now, maybe that needs to be revisited. If we’re worried about process… is it me, or was Jim Durkin once appointed to the GA too? - southsider - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 11:58 am: HB3947 makes it a class 3 felony if any family member living with a member of the General Assembly receives compensation for communicating with local officials. It effectively prohibits spouses and family living with a member from employment with any unit of local government or a school district. - mocking jay - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:00 pm: Pro rate legislator pay based on how many days they worked in the month, i.e. you can’t get paid for the whole month if you resigned on the first of the month. - An_Illinois_Man - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:01 pm: HB3947 should be amended to include any elected official from Illinois (Congressmen and Senators) - SouthSide Markie - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:01 pm: I would add a prohibition on members of the General Assembly and their law firms from representing units of local government. Or at the least, representing them in connection with public finance matters. - Foolish Sophist - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:07 pm: Is there a reason that the prohibition against lobbying activities extends to local governments, etc., outside of Illinois? Seems to be more punitive than prudent… - anon - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:11 pm: I’d go further and ban outside employment of any kind. Turn being a state legislator into a recognized full time job, even if it requires a small increase in pay. - Perrid - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:14 pm: Uh, the reslution about not liking Madigan killing bills by putting them into Rules is an ethics thing? Spreading out control is good for democracy in general, but this is at least a very indirect way of dealing with corruption/ethics. It really seems more like complaining in general that a targeted approach to ethics reform. Regarding HB 3955, about communications around contracts, how is that not already something that has to be disclosed under the Procurement code? I just looked it up and yeah, only state and university employees have to report “Any written or oral communication received by a State employee that imparts or requests material information or makes a material argument regarding potential action concerning a procurement matter” - Anyone Remember - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:16 pm: “Don’t get the good gov obsession with vacancy filling. Elections cost money and time and resources.” Here in Sangmon County county-wide officials, generally, are selected, then elected. Still think HJRCA 36 should include (or there should be a companion measure) county-wide officials. - Truthteller - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:30 pm: Now that the GOP has found religion on ethics, someone should ask Durkin if presidential candidates in Illinois should be required to make their income tax returns public, and if he thinks attempts to extort political favors in return for government funds, like asking Ukraine to manufacture dirt on Biden in return for military assistance, is unethical and should, as it did with Blago, lead to impeachment . - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:30 pm: 3955 seems like a big overreach. I get the abuses, but legislators aren’t allowed to call an administration to ask about something going on in their district without some suspicion? Seems excessive. - Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:42 pm: Playing Devil’s Advocate for 588, it requires 5 co-sponsors from each party. It seems designed to prevent committee chairs from putting bricks on bills for any, no, or a corrupt reason. Seeing as a lot of the attention has been directed at committee chairs lately, I see their intent. - Altgelds Ghost - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:44 pm: Spouses, parents, children, step-parents and children-in-laws of legislators should be banned from lobbying the state. - Try-4-Truth - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:44 pm: ===== House Resolution 588 will allow a Chief Co-Sponsor of any bill with five co-sponsors from each party to call it for an up or down vote in a substantive committee. ====== This is pure politics.. I don’t see it happening. The rest is good politics and might have a positive impact on governing the state. - Chicagonk - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 12:52 pm: Good ideas from the Republicans on this. The appointment issue is especially frustrating when they retire right after reelection and then go straight into lobbying (Lou Lang for example). I would add a cooling off period for any legislator of at least one year before they can become a registered state lobbyist. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 1:06 pm: == I’d go further and ban outside employment of any kind. Turn being a state legislator into a recognized full time job, even if it requires a small increase in pay.== Be careful what you wish for. People might be less interested in running for seats. (Unless they are billionaires of course). Who would want to give up the family farm for a (maybe)two year gig? - Snyder - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 1:10 pm: yes - live stream and archive all committee and floor proceedings. 43 other states + DC, PR and VI archive webcasts of floor proceedings and 35 states at least archive webcasts of committee proceedings. http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/legislative-webcasts-and-broadcasts.aspx - Just Observing - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 1:36 pm: HB 3947 seems legally dubious. I have a hard time believing the GA regulating the profession of spouses and other family members (only if they live in the same house (but next door is okay) of members of the GA would pass legal muster. - Back to the Future - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 1:49 pm: Really think this corruption issue in our state government is more a law enforcement issue than a problem seeking a General Assembly process review. Of course, some of these ideas sound good, but an enhanced “whistleblower” law with some initial very high financial rewards as well as privacy protections would work better at starting a clean up of government corruption in our state. As taxpayers we spend an awful lot of money tracking these wrongdoers down. A process that could speed up the process and reduce costs could result in a very quick improvement in the corruption issues we are seeing going on with our elected officials. A review of just a couple of our elected officials wearing wires and turning in folks involved in questionable conduct takes up about a half an hour or more per day in reading for a lot of taxpayers.Imagine how many more elected officials, corporations and lobbyists could be questioned with a big (very big) pool of money for whistlers. - Just Me 2 - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 1:59 pm: Legislative staff also can’t be lobbyists at the same time like Madigan’s spokesperson. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 2:05 pm: ===Legislative staff === Brown isn’t on staff. He’s on contract. - Get Real - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 2:50 pm: ===Brown isn’t on staff, he is on contract=== This nuanced difference doesn’t really register in terms of the corruption angle. He is the Speaker’s spokesperson on a daily basis, with access to the floor, Democrat Caucus meetings, et. al. The staff vs. contract employee angle in the context of this discussion is minutia. Even saying it out loud sounds seedy. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 2:57 pm: === This nuanced difference doesn’t really register in terms of the corruption angle.=== Contract employees have less rights too, easier to “dismiss” A nuance too. - Get Real - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 3:04 pm: He is on the Speaker’s leadership team in every conceivable way and still lobbying/currying favor with the Speaker for clients who are paying him. If this doesn’t reek of insider corruption, what would that definition look like? - crazybleedingheart - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 4:07 pm: ==House Resolution 588 will allow a Chief Co-Sponsor of any bill with five co-sponsors from each party to call it for an up or down vote in a substantive committee.== Terrible idea. And not a very conservative approach to lower the bar for nonsense bills rather than targeting corruption itself. - Just Me 2 - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 4:43 pm: === Brown isn’t on staff. He’s on contract. === I am going to assume that is snark, because if it were serious that would be laughable. - Pol Watcher - Thursday, Nov 7, 19 @ 10:18 pm: JB and the other statewide officers don’t need a bill on this suggestion. Issue EO banning all agencies under their respective control from hiring registered lobbyists to lobby their own government. Sounds absurd? Believe me, in my previous life I saw it numerous times. Go check. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.