33 Comments - TJ - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:13 am: Donate an identical sum to a well-established charity and announce that you are doing so as a result of the misdeeds of the donor and not wanting to associate with them. There, you did some good, you aren’t tied to dirty money, and you didn’t give a heinous individual money back. - Alton Sinkhole - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:18 am: If he is guilty of a murder-for-hire scheme, then he should give the sum to some anti-violence charities. Side note: Kinda crazy to me this isn’t a bigger story. - 47th Ward - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:19 am: Agree with you Rich. Right now, Durk wishes he had $150K back in his hands. His lawyers too, I’m sure. Other pols recognizing this dilemma donate funds to a charitable cause to help cleanse the stink off of them. That’s fine, if you have the cash. Which brings me to Johnson, who spent that money and more trying to win a close primary and even closer general election. That $150K is long gone. So that leaves a few options: ask his benefactors at CTU to pony up another $150K so he can donate it to charity? Find another sucker, oops, I mean “donor,” to give him $150K so he can donate that away? Or he can take his lumps on this story, which won’t go away regardless of what he does about the donation. You can’t unring a bell. And who knows, maybe he can claim some credibility in certain circles for being friends with a famous rapper accused of murder? Stranger things have happened. That’s a long way of saying, pols in this situation should donate the money to charity. They should also carefully vet the money they accept so they minimize the chance of this happening. But desperate campaigns almost always take the cash, so we’ll almost certainly see more of this question. - Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:26 am: ===Agree with you Rich=== This is Isabel’s post. - DuPage Saint - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:29 am: I don’t think it usually makes a difference if a politician can take the PR hit it is up to them. If they have the money giving it to a charity makes sense. It is not like he took it from an ongoing well known crook. However I find his defense very off putting - Donnie Elgin - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:36 am: It should be up to each candidate to decide what is best. I mean, does every donor get scrutinized? No - Steve - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:38 am: You can’t do bad by giving money to charity. The are lots of great ones. A lot of important causes do need help. - Alton Sinkhole - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:39 am: == does every donor get scrutinized? No== Does every donor engage in a murder-for-hire scheme that resulted in the death of a young man? - 47th Ward - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:40 am: D’oh. Sorry Isabel. - Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:45 am: I think MBJ should donate this money. Someone on trial for murder for hire is not the same to me as a vape manufacturer. In other circumstances, I would understand an elected just keeping the money, but this is a serious crime that Mr. Banks has been accused of, and the Mayor should give the money to an anti-violence charity. He won’t because he cares more about needing the money than the crime. It is $150K CTU does not need to give him. Hiding behind criminal procedure is just gaslighting and more condescension to the electorate. - DS - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:47 am: This mayor is so good at not answering questions. He should have ignored this question. - Dupage - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:57 am: Speaking of Mayor Johnson, did he get any donations from the teacher’s union? Someone might think there is a quid pro quo with some of his extreme actions and demands of CPS. - 4 eyes - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:57 am: Donate it to a local charity if there truly is an actionable reason such as indictments, arrests, etc. I understand the guy hasn’t been convicted yet, but in the court of public opinion, hanging on to that money just isn’t worth it. - Just Me 2 - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 11:58 am: It’s difficult to return or donate the money since it’s already been spent. It’s a nice press pop for the other opponent, so you just gotta’ suck it up and move on by reiterating your own values that may be dissimilar with those of the people who donated to you. - Bud Wilson - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 12:01 pm: Da Mayor Johnson should donate the money to a Charity that pays delinquent City of Chicago Water & Sanitation bills. Is it acceptable to be snarky on a Monday? Applesauce to all. - H-W - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 12:02 pm: Because there is no law, nor ethics code, the choice belongs to the recipient. I can only say what I believe I would do in a theoretical context. I would weigh the potential harm my association with the donor may have upon others, as well as upon my future desire to serve. I would also consider if there are ways to confront the situation head on, but calling out the problem, and then deciding what to do (e.g., in the context of ethics, if I receive a gift as a professor, I have to decide whether to accept it, and if so, whether or not to donate and equivalence toward a charity). But as to politicians, controversial donations are widespread, and unless illegal, it is up to the candidate. - hmmm - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 12:06 pm: He should just say nothing. He already gave the money, and Durk hasn’t been convicted. No harm no foul - Amalia - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 12:09 pm: well don’t give it back to Durk (banned punctuation) And search contributions for every link to the record company.sued as a criminal enterprise by a victim’s mother. Pols gotta get real with the fact that they need to scrutinize their donations. The rap music industry in Chicago is filled with shooting, murder stories. it’s shocking. Donate to some anti violence group. And Angel Reese, stop hanging around with these folks, this charged guy, the girlfriend of someone on a murder charge in another state. it’s past time to stop normalizing the violence in this industry. - Perrid - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 12:10 pm: If contributions buy influence (by any other name you want to use to pretend to stay within the law), if they build a relationship, then giving the money back breaks that “relationship”, imo. The pol is disavowing the “bad” person. Frankly, I’d be more inclined to donate the funds to some charity than to give it back to the criminal. - Annonin' - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 12:11 pm: Show of hands …any CaptFaxers know what or who a Lil Durk is? We thought it might be a short kin of exGOPPie Durkie. - This - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 12:33 pm: Donate to a local charity or two - Alton Sinkhole - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 12:35 pm: == No harm no foul == Except for the person who was shot and killed by people (allegedly) paid by Lil Durk. Other than that, you’re right on. - granville - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 12:35 pm: How a normal politician would have responded to this: “I’m shocked to learn about this, I haven’t read the indictment or press release from the district attorney’s office so I can’t comment on that, but seeing this cycle of violence continue and claim the lives of even more talented young black men shows us the work we need to do is not finished. Last week when I was at Whitney Young, I met a young man who…” The donation talk will stick because Johnson himself has not even tried to separate himself from it and the man just arrested trying to flee the country from a murder-for-hire ambush. There will be few developments in the story so people will go back to the donation again and again. It’s like watching a man step on a rake over and over again. - You win more bees with honey - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 12:52 pm: Does the mayor also support P Diddy? Just give the $ back, why wait when it seems pretty clear that Durk was trying to flee the country and was involved. - We've never had one before - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 1:34 pm: Nixon kept the cocker spaniel. - Candy Dogood - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 1:36 pm: ===What do you think pols should do with controversial campaign donations?=== It depends on a lot. If the donation is during the campaign and depending on the controversy I would suggest an appropriate charity. After the campaign is over, especially years after the campaign is over, I think the window is largely closed on this, especially depending on the size of the contribution and what’s in the battle chest. If the contribution was legal, I do not think it should be returned in most cases. If the person is so vile that a campaign cannot accept their money, they should not get a refund and the money should be directed at an appropriate charity, ideally a charity that is the opposite of their wickedness or whatever. The idea of needing to return, refuse, or donate a political campaign contribution is both a political and legal reality. When there is no legal rule against acceptance, one still needs to be prepared to do it, especially in a state where we are famous for Illinois Nazis and in general everyone should refuse, return, or donate a contribution from someone with a history like David Duke. If I were a donor to Johnson’s campaign, I would not want him to return the funds because the expectation is that other political donors would be making up for the difference of campaign funds already spent. As an observer, Mayor Johnson isn’t exactly hitting it out of the park but the political reality was that it was either vote for Brandon Johnson for Mayor or vote for the Vallas’s campaign that was nothing but astroturf. Not a Democrat. Not a Chicagoan. The Chicago Tribune weighed in on that choice. They wanted the astroturf and I couldn’t care less about what they think Mayor Brandon Johnson should do with the political contributions that helped to defeat their board’s effort to encourage Chicagoans to go out and touch fake grass. It’s not like the Chicago Tribune is out their “returning” or “denouncing” their prior endorsements on a regular basis, and it looks like this fall they have yet again endorsed Mike Bost who committed a felony with a firearm. So what exactly are their standards? Felonies are okay as long as there aren’t charges? Are they writing this garbage instead of publishing their endorsement for Office of President of the United States? - Peoples Republic of Oak Park - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 1:40 pm: Never give the money back. The hit happened. You didnt do the bad thing. If voters are willing to blame you for guilt by association you got bigger problems and you need the money to make the case. - Beep booop - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 1:45 pm: Nobody is advocating he give it back to Durk. He’d give it to a charity. Not hard to understand that concept - Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 2:04 pm: ===Nobody is advocating he give it back to Durk=== Can you not read? Tribune: Given the facts laid out above, one would think the easiest of calls for Mayor Johnson would be to return the $150,000 and get himself as far away from this PR nightmare as possible and do it as quickly as possible. - @misterjayem - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 2:06 pm: “During my time in Springfield, I’ve heard ‘why don’t you return ___’s contribution’ many times. I never did get why.” If Johnson had dumped Lil Durk’s contribution on Friday, we wouldn’t be taking about it today. Or tomorrow. And every time this murder-for-hire story is in the news. Imho, ymmv, etc. – MrJM - Gravitas - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 2:21 pm: I agree with those who favor donating the tainted campaign contribution to charity. - JB13 - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 2:23 pm: General rule should be: If the contribution is from someone who is disliked for their speech, keep the money. If the dislike stems from trying to kill someone, find some way to at least make it look like you don’t care what he did while trying to frame the question as racist - allknowingmasterofraccoondom - Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 7:37 pm: My question is why did they take the donation in the first place? They knew. All of them knew when they took the money. Trust me, all of them knew. TrackBack URI Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.