Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Tusk also wants the Supreme Court’s guidance on pay to play rules

Friday, Dec 8, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller

* 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.

7 Comments

Republicans use amicus brief to tie Pritzker to Blagojevich

Wednesday, Dec 6, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller

* ILGOP…

J.B. Pritzker’s Campaign Supporters Are Riding To The Rescue Of Pritzker Friend Rod Blagojevich

Does J.B. Pritzker agree with his campaign supporters that the U.S. Supreme Court should hear Rod Blagojevich’s appeal?

The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that Illinois Democrats, including key allies of J.B. Pritzker, signed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear imprisoned Governor Rod Blagojevich’s most recent appeal to get out of prison early.

Congressmen Luis Gutierrez, Mike Quigley, and former Congressmen Glenn Poshard all have endorsed Pritzker’s campaign for governor and all have also signed their names onto the brief concerning Blagojevich’s appeal.

Does J.B. Pritzker agree with his campaign supporters that the U.S. Supreme Court should hear Rod Blagojevich’s appeal?

J.B. Pritzker has long been under fire for his extremely close ties to Rod Blagojevich.

In a bombshell investigative report from the Chicago Tribune, it was revealed that Pritzker was recorded on FBI wiretaps conversing with Blagojevich about being appointed State Treasurer, among other offices. Pritzker and Blagojevich also discussed campaign contributions on the same wiretap recordings.

Pritzker was later scrutinized for a $100,000 campaign contribution to Blagojevich where one reporter said “sounds like pay-to-play to me.”

In the late 90s, Pritzker said that Blagojevich would be “very helpful” for Pritzker’s own political plans. Public records also reveal that J.B. Pritzker was Rod Blagojevich’s fifth-largest gubernatorial campaign contributor.

Given J.B. Pritzker’s close ties to imprisoned former governor Rod Blagojevich, surely Pritzker has an opinion on Blagojevich’s latest attempt to get out of prison early.

9 Comments

Illinois politicians step up for Blagojevich, and themselves

Wednesday, Dec 6, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller

[Bumped up for visibility.]

* Sun-Times…

A group of high-profile Illinois Democrats have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s case.

In an amicus brief filed Monday, the who’s who list of current and former Illinois Democratic congressional delegation members emphasized that they take “no position on Mr. Blagojevich’s innocence or guilt on any of the counts of conviction.”

Instead, they wrote that the nation’s highest court should hear his appeal to “distinguish the lawful solicitation and donation of campaign contributions from criminal violations of federal extortion, bribery, and fraud laws.” […]

The amicus brief filed Monday echoes many of the points argued by Blagojevich’s lawyers, who say the high court must settle questions over whether prosecutors in a case like Blagojevich’s must prove a public official made an “explicit promise or undertaking” in exchange for a campaign contribution.

The petitioners in Monday’s brief wrote that current laws create “confusion” over “the necessary, legitimate solicitation of campaign contributions, on the one hand, and unlawful extortion, bribery, and fraud, on the other.”

The brief is here.

* WGN…

They said they are not taking a stand on the ex-governor’s guilt or innocence. What they are doing is asking the country’s highest court to clear the air around campaign finance law. […]

The amicus brief said blurry lines between legal and illegal fundraising leave politicians vulnerable.

“Although amici take no position on Mr. Blagojevich’s innocence or guilt on any of the counts of conviction, they submit that this court’s guidance is needed to distinguish the lawful solicitation and donation of campaign contributions from criminal violations of federal bribery, extortion and fraud laws,” the document said.

“This isn’t a plea for a pardon. This is, I think, a demand that the court clarify what constitutes a bribe, extortion and what constitutes doing something for a constituent or somebody that asks you to do something,” Gutierrez said.

* ABC 7…

“So long as the law is vague, and so long as there’s a split of opinion about what exactly it takes for there to be criminal action, a bribe, politicians of all kinds in all places will have criminal exposure,” said ABC 7 Political Analyst Gil Soffer. […]

The current and former lawmakers who signed the amici curiae brief are:

- U.S. Rep Jan Schakowsky (D-IL 9th District)
- U.S. Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL 7th District)
- U.S. Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL 11th District)
- U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL 4th District)
- U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL 5th District)
- U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL 1st District)
- Former U.S. Attorney and Rep. Bob Barr
- Former U.S. Rep. William Lipinski
- Former U.S. Rep. David Phelps
- Former U.S. Rep. Glenn Poshard
- Former State Sen. Emil Jones
- Former State Sen. Carol Ronen
- Elmwood Park Village President and former State Rep. Skip Saviano
- Attorney and former DNC general counsel Joe Sandler
- Former FEC special Assistant General Counsel Lyn Utrecht
- Edward M. Smith, former vice president of Laborer’s International Union of North America, Midwest Region
- Nancy Shier, retired manager of Early Childhood Organization
- Attorney Harvey Silverglate
- Attorney [and Cook County Commissioner] Lawrence Suffredin

Lots of FoBs (Friends of Blagojevich) on that list.

* NBC 5…

“A correct determination of what words and actions are legal and what are not legal is absolutely critical,” [the Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers wrote in a second brief]. “The various appellate courts are in disarray regarding whether, in a campaign finance prosecution, the government needs to prove that there was an explicit quid pro quo in trade for the donation as originally outlined in McCormick v. United States, or whether there need only be something implicitly understood as a ‘wink and a nudge.’”

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Blagojevich argued that he was innocent under the standards of McCormick, which stated a campaign finance crime only occurs when a politician makes an explicit promise of an official act in exchange for a campaign contribution, something the former governor says that he never did.

Another case, Evans vs. United States, adopts the “wink and nod” standard, saying one or both of the parties only need to believe there is such an arrangement.

“This court needs to eliminate the confusion,” the Illinois Defense Lawyers wrote. “The political candidate seeking office is supposed to ask for money. The political candidate is also expected to take the money.”

Conversely, they wrote, “political donors, by definition, are supposed to give candidates money.”

38 Comments

« NEWER POSTS