Rate Jesse Sullivan’s anti-corruption agenda
Tuesday, Mar 15, 2022 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Press release…
Republican gubernatorial candidate Jesse Sullivan today announced his “Clean Up Illinois” anti-corruption agenda. The roadmap follows on the heels of arraignment of Illinois Democrat House Speaker Michael Madigan on federal racketeering charges.
“We have long known that corruption runs deep in Illinois politics. And that corruption transcends party lines. For decades, Democrats and Republicans have used their positions to curry favor and enrich themselves, and everyday Illinoisans suffer,” Sullivan said.
“We cannot trust political insiders to rid our state of patronage hiring and pay-to-play politics. Only a political outsider – who doesn’t see politics as a career pathway, but as a form of service, can deliver the type of governance, oversight, and accountability that our state so desperately needs.”
The 10-point anti-corruption agenda is the strongest ethics plan released by any gubernatorial candidate, and follows the endorsement of Sullivan’s campaign by former Legislative Inspector General Carol Pope.
Agenda:
1. Implement strict term limits for elected officials. Public service is an act of love for our neighbor, but it is also an act of trust. We cannot allow politicians to use their positions to enrich themselves and their friends. There is no better safeguard than a limit on how long they can hold power.
2. Support fair maps. Fight for a constitutional amendment for a fair legislative redistricting process, which would put redistricting in the hands of an independent commission rather than partisan lawmakers.
3. Pass the harshest public corruption penalties in the country. Support penalty enhancements laid out in 2018’s House Bill 5878, including increasing the fine for bribery from $25,000 to $1 million; doubling the fine for receiving contributions on state property from $5,000 to $10,000; and increasing the maximum fines for engaging in prohibited political activities and improperly serving on state boards and commissions to $10,000 and $35,000 respectively.
4. Make the legislative inspector general a watchdog, not a lapdog. Illinoisans deserve the strongest legislative watchdog in the nation. The LIG should have publishing power, subpoena power, the power to proactively pursue a case rather than simply respond to filed complaints, and the jurisdiction to hold legislators accountable for any egregious actions inside or outside of their official capacity. At minimum, the LIG should have as much power as Chicago’s Office of the Inspector General.
5. End the “honor system” for conflicts of interest in Springfield. Illinois law requires lawmakers to file financial disclosure statements, but not to declare when they face a conflict of interest before taking a vote. Most states require all members of the legislature to disclose conflicts of interest for each measure, and ban lawmakers from voting at all in the case of a conflict. Illinois should require the same.
6. Reform the Legislative Ethics Commission. Add a seat to the Legislative Ethics Commission for a non-legislator citizen, so that the commission cannot kill investigations into their political allies with 4-4 split votes along party lines.
7. Drop J.B. Pritzker’s fight to fire the federally appointed hiring monitor. The people of Illinois should be able to trust that we have their best interests at heart, not the interests of a special few. Our administration will end Pritzker’s fight to fire the patronage hiring monitor and ban paying any gubernatorial staff members with private money, as Pritzker does.
8. Ban sitting lawmakers from coming before the Property Tax Appeals Board as property tax attorneys. Lawmakers should not be able to enrich themselves through an insider appeals process that only exists because of their political malfeasance.
9. Amend conflict of interest laws. We must ensure no lawmaker’s firm can represent client interests before any government agency or legislative body. This ban on self-dealing would function similar to Chicago’s “cross-lobbying ban,” which bars state lawmakers from lobbying City Council.
10. Put an end to the revolving door between legislators and lobbyists. The last “ethics reform” legislation was insufficient. Currently, a loophole allows a legislator to retire a day before the end of their term and begin lobbying their colleagues the next day. Florida has a six-year ban on legislators moving into lobbying positions. We propose a seven-year ban for Illinois, which would be the strongest in the nation. Becoming a legislator should be a form of temporary public service, not a pathway to a lucrative lobbying career.
Agree with it or not, Sullivan is the only Republican candidate who is producing actual ideas. The campaign released its anti-crime agenda not long ago.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 8:32 am:
1) A plan is better than no plan, which is what all of his rivals have (I said this when he introduced his very silly crime plan, too).
2) This one…isn’t bad. 1 and 2 aren’t really “ethics reform” so much as “Change the rules so Republicans can win the game more often reform”, but they’re superficially popular (even though #1 would have the unfortunate side effect of empowering lobbyists and unelected staff). 7 is just flat out wrong, and Governor-Elect Sullivan would regret saying it about 15 minutes after the race is called. But the rest ain’t bad.
- H-W - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 8:42 am:
Overall, I think it is a good platform. I am not sure about item three. But the others speak to the issue of integrity in politics.
That said, I will note that the second quote is illogical in structure, and not addressed in the platform. Sullivan writes, “We cannot trust political insiders to rid our state of patronage hiring and pay-to-play politics. Only a political outsider – who doesn’t see politics as a career pathway, but as a form of service, can deliver the type of governance, oversight, and accountability that our state so desperately needs.” And yet, he suggests he is running to be a reform-minded insider. Irony I suppose, but this form of argument seems to roll off the lips of candidates for office - don’t trust insiders; elect me to be an insider.
- The Hills 60010 - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 8:44 am:
All good, but hard to truly agree with 7. If elected needs to staff a rare talent, then paying more for that talent should be allowed.
Sullivan’s crime proposals, nothing in them addressing prevention, pure punitive reactionary lock em up stuff.
- Steve - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 8:45 am:
It’s a darn good start. I’d add : no one can be a judge in Illinois who’s married to an elected representative at the state or local level.
- Ryan - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 8:48 am:
It’s a plan, a decent start. I don’t see much wrong with it, seems like common sense to me.
- Cook Street - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 8:51 am:
Pretty good start. Is it DOA?
- Cubs in '16 - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 8:52 am:
===that corruption transcends party lines===
I’d rate it favorably on this statement alone but overall it contains some good ideas.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 8:56 am:
==Is it DOA? ==
The author is unlikely to ever be in a position to implement it, but someone else could pick up pieces of it here and there.
- Cannon649 - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 8:56 am:
Strong start - hope it starts the debate
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 8:57 am:
The politics?
I rate it a B+. It tries to hit all the hot button issues that poll well and sound good in snippets, it gets a bit wonky so the simple part gets a little muddy.
The actual?
For me, it’s a C-, and I’m generous.
Term limits is a non-starter, for me… no executive office candidate or office holder should weigh in on another legislative body, if Sullivan wants a certain LIG, run for the GA.
The “ethics” part in the last few, yeah, ok, it plays well, but then there needs to be a reckoning to what a full time or part time legislator is, and again, if you want reform in the GA, run for state representative or state senate.
- Red Ranger - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 8:59 am:
Its fine. No new ideas that haven’t been kicked around for a while and not acted upon. Its hard to imagine that stricter penalties will deter corruption in IL. Every pol that gets pinched in IL ends up having their financial and personal lives ruined by the feds, yet it still keeps happening. I don’t see what will change.
- Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 9:00 am:
Missouri’s experience with term limits would suggest just the opposite for No. 1. Short-term lawmakers eager to do what it takes to line themselves up for lucrative lobbying gigs once their brief public service hits its limit.
- Annonin' - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 9:01 am:
Looks like Sullie forgot to expand all his brain storms to the Executive IG? Perhaps SingleMom can remind him?
- AlfondoGonz - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 9:03 am:
1. Term limits exist. They’re called elections.
2. Call me a cynic, but an “independent commission” will not make much of a difference.
3. Wholly support this point; I am one of the few who thinks Rod’s sentence was more than fair. That said, corruption is typically reserved for the feds, who do a better job prosecuting it.
4. Eh. I don’t think it will make any difference except as a cudgel for the minority, who we all know acts in bad faith.
5.No. It’s hard enough to ge things done.
6.No.
7. No.
8. Yes.
9. No, again, because it’s hard enough to get things done.
10.Most lobbyists I worked with were good, ethical, and informed. They make easy scapegoats for the uninitiated.
- The Hills 60010 - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 9:07 am:
- Red Ranger - ” Every pol that gets pinched in IL ends up having their financial and personal lives ruined by the feds, yet it still keeps happening. I don’t see what will change.”
WE can demand change and be willing to stop rewarding the scoffers with continuous election to public office.
- Jocko - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 9:07 am:
==We cannot allow politicians to use their positions to enrich themselves and their friends.==
I can simplify Jessie’s agenda to two. (1) overturn Citizens United and (2) tax corporations and the wealthy at a rate leaving them with less money to tip the legislative and executive ’scales’ to their benefit.
- Raising Kane - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 9:12 am:
Actual ideas? Platitudes man….these aren’t detailed at all.
- Steve Rogers - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 9:15 am:
For the most part it’s not bad, and it is good that someone is offering something of substance.
However, and admittedly this is nitpicking, but it’s consistent with Sullivan using more words than necessary.
What is “strict” term limits as opposed to term limits? To quote Col. Nathan Jessup: “is there another kind?”
- low level - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 9:19 am:
== Implement strict term limits for elected officials. Public service is an act of love for our neighbor, but it is also an act of trust.==
Sounds good, polls good, but doesn’t work in practice.
== Short-term lawmakers eager to do what it takes to line themselves up for lucrative lobbying gigs==
This is absolutely the case in states w TL.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 9:30 am:
==Call me a cynic, but an “independent commission” will not make much of a difference.==
Depends on how it’s structured, but we’ve seen plenty of examples, from both parties, of independent commissions being gamed or thwarted this year. Some have worked (MI came up with maps that should be pretty swingy, as befits a perpetual swing state), though.
- Techie - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 10:07 am:
Mostly pretty good. Not a huge fan of term limits without also preventing former lawmakers from becoming lobbyists or otherwise using their time in office as a way of gaining other financial benefit.
While we should theoretically have an independent means of drawing fair maps, I’m wary of doing so on a state-by-state basis. If Democratic-leaning states all move to independent/fair maps, while Republican-leaning states continue to pursue gerrymandering, nationally we’re left with a large, artificial benefit to Republicans. Especially given the insanity of today’s Republican party, I’m not ok with that. Something needs to happen on the federal level to fix gerrymandering.
- Huh? - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 11:19 am:
Not even DOA. Never born. Draft legislation may be proposed, but bill will sent to the rules committee to die.
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 11:27 am:
#1 and #2 are straight out of the Rauner playbook, and we saw how well that worked.
“Pass the harshest public corruption penalties in the country.” Yup, the old “this legislation will send a message…” trope.
- Rudy’s teeth - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 2:36 pm:
Too many words.
Too much editorializing.
Too repetitive.
Clear, concise, and cogent would be an improvement.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Mar 15, 22 @ 10:05 pm:
I’m not really sure how to rate this because we usually do ads, and this is a terrible ad.
=== Drop J.B. Pritzker’s fight to fire the federally appointed hiring monitor.===
He’s done a good job producing something that anyone involved in or following government should be able to find something in there they agree with, the above is an example of something I can agree with. That being said he’s mostly just cobbling together the suggestions of others and leading with things that won’t really address problems, such as term limits. People who pretend like term limits would end corruption or are some kind of magic bullet to produce a better legislature are simply demonstrating they don’t really understand how our legislative government processes work and that they don’t really understand the mechanisms of corruption or they’re deliberately misleading.
Jesse strikes me as the type who is deliberately misleading, but that doesn’t matter because this list appears to be a concise list of things proposed by others in the first place.
He gets a B for doing good home work. Shame that he doesn’t think all of the People of Illinois are people.
- Da big bad wolf - Wednesday, Mar 16, 22 @ 7:01 am:
=== Implement strict term limits for elected officials. Public service is an act of love for our neighbor, but it is also an act of trust.===
Ridiculous. Term limits can’t make a corrupt person not corrupt. Long terms don’t automatically make non corrupt people corrupt.
=== Support fair maps.===
There is a bill passed by the US House but stalled in the Senate that will do that called Freedom to Vote Act. You support that bill, right?
=== Drop J.B. Pritzker’s fight to fire the federally appointed hiring monitor.===
A huge waste of money. So you’re not against wasting money I see. And how did this monitor stop corrupt people?
===Ban sitting lawmakers from coming before the Property Tax Appeals Board as property tax attorneys.===
The people who vote for property taxes (local boards and such)don’t write and vote for laws, so in what way does this even make sense?
====Amend conflict of interest laws. We must ensure no lawmaker’s firm can represent client interests before any government agency or legislative body.=== Ok this sounds good but this could be problematic. No realtor can vote for any law that affects housing? No farmer can vote on any agricultural bill? No teacher can vote on an educational bill? How would this work?
A few gems hidden in this trash mountain. It makes me feel like I’m at the thrift store.