* One reform item which is rarely if ever discussed is the power of local elections boards to do things like this…

Voters in south suburban Bremen Township will see two names on the ballot for township supervisor — Maggie Crotty and Sarah Hamm. But they will be handed a notice saying that a vote for Hamm won’t count. The state appellate court ruled her off the ballot last week, leaving Crotty, a Democratic state senator, to run unopposed.

Earlier, Crotty supporter George Murphy put together an objection to Hamm’s candidacy, saying she did not have sufficient signatures. Murphy arrived at the township office 40 minutes after it closed on the final day to file objections. Murphy called township clerk Leonard J. Hines, who’s running with Crotty, and Hines accepted the objection after hours. A Cook County judge said that smelled fishy and threw out the objection, leaving Hamm on the ballot. The appellate court reversed that ruling last week.

Way too often, local elections boards are controlled by incumbents and their friends and allies and the results are too often predictable. We need a better way.

…Adding… The Sun-Times has posted more info to the story’s online version…

Hines drove to the office, let Murphy in the back door, notarized Murphy’s objection and accepted it after-hours. A Cook County judge said that smelled fishy and threw out the objection, questioning whether an average, unconnected citizen would get the same service from the township clerk. That judge’s ruling left Hamm on the ballot. The appellate court reversed that ruling last week.

* My weekly syndicated newspaper column makes some reform suggestions. I’m not wedded to any of them, but let’s take a look anyway…

I’ve often said I’m a reform agnostic.

It’s not that I don’t believe in good government.

I do. Fervently.

And I most certainly don’t believe as some do that voters should be given the sole responsibility to weed out the crooks and con artists. “Let the buyer beware” just isn’t good enough. Rod Blagojevich’s two consecutive gubernatorial campaign wins and George Ryan’s earlier win proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that voters simply aren’t able to handle this task on their own.

So, we do need some “consumer protection” laws in Illinois. But we should also keep some important points in mind.

For instance, campaign contribution caps are now being pushed hard by good government groups and Gov. Pat Quinn’s independent reform commission. Most want a federal-style program that would cap contributions at about $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for political action committees.

On its face, that looks quite reasonable. Contribution limitations are imposed in Washington, D.C., and many other states.

But caps can also hurt those who challenge the status quo.

It’s probably no coincidence that no incumbent Illinois congressman has lost his or her seat for years unless they were under some sort of extreme ethical cloud. For instance, Dan Rostenkowski got caught up in a probe of the U.S. House post office and was the only Illinois Democrat turned out during the historic 1994 national Republican landslide. Dan Crane was ousted by voters after his involvement in a congressional page sex scandal. Charles Hayes lost a primary when he was linked to a House bounced checks scandal.

Back in 2007, several deeply entrenched Chicago aldermen lost their seats to young reformers because a few reform-minded labor unions dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into their campaigns. If the union contributions had been capped, most of those reformers would’ve lost.

Caps mean that most challengers have to work much harder to raise money. Incumbents have access to financial networks that usually dwarf those of outsiders. National political parties and caucus organizations often take up the slack these days to help level the congressional playing field, but that usually means they choose who runs. The proposals coming out of Springfield would cap those sorts of contributions to state and local candidates.

The horrific venality revealed after Rod Blagojevich’s arrest and indictment has prompted loud and angry calls to “do something and do it now.” One of those “somethings” most often mentioned is campaign contribution caps.

If we’re going down that road then we should do as little harm as possible to challengers. A higher cap, perhaps somewhere near the $10,000 legislative limit proposed by Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno, of Lemont, might be the way to go. It’s high enough to help people fend off uncapped, self-financing millionaire opponents, but low enough to do some reforming good.

Also, barring all campaign donations of any kind to incumbent legislators and statewide officials during the spring legislative session would help even out the playing field for challengers and could prevent some pay to play hanky panky. It might also ensure the General Assembly adjourns on time.

Banning contributions from industries regulated by the government would be an obvious help.

Requiring almost immediate online disclosure of contributions could be an effective deterrent. If we had known in “real time” that Blagojevich was taking $25,000 contributions from his appointees to state boards and commissions, we might have been able to stop some of his excesses.

One of the most important changes we can make has nothing to do with money, however.

Prohibiting incumbents from drawing legislative, congressional, aldermanic and county board district maps is an absolute must. Incumbents in this state “choose” their voters by manipulating their own district boundaries every 10 years.

Iowa allows a computer to draw district maps based on population, not political or other parochial preferences. As the congressional results show, incumbents have far too much advantage, so keeping them from drawing their own maps would be an enormous help.

In the end, though, Illinois voters absolutely must start looking beyond the slick ads, familiar names and blind partisan leanings that have gotten us into this mess. Just about every political reporter in Illinois did his or her very best in the 2006 governor’s race to warn voters they were about to re-elect a crook. But voters bought Blagojevich’s bag of disgusting goods and here we stand.

…Adding… Far too much of the “reform” proposals focus on the evils of money, rather than making elections, including primaries, more competitive and, therefore, more small “d” democratic. I’ll have more on this soon.

* And the Tribune has a couple of reform items it wants passed before the “big” capital projects bill is addressed…

First, a bill sponsored by Rep. Kathleen Ryg (D-Vernon Hills) that would require all proposed transportation projects be measured against specific goals—congestion relief or energy savings, for example—and ranked accordingly. The bill, supported by the Metropolitan Planning Council and Chicago 2020, also seeks to balance the needs of urban and rural communities and to ensure that projects are approved based not on clout but on how well they further statewide goals.

Second, a proposal from the Illinois Reform Commission that would insulate state procurement officers from politics. Setting up an independent office to award contracts would help ensure that those decisions are based on objective and professional standards instead of being manipulated by politicians. The plan would also close numerous loopholes that allow government officials to skirt the procurement process altogether.

* And, via comments on another post, we have this from Quinn commission chairman Patrick Collins…

“We just learned today that we have been invited to testify April 21 before the joint [House/Senate ethics] committee,” he said of a separate reform study group appointed by House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton. “I’m not sure that would have happened a couple of weeks ago.”

Let’s see. Madigan sent his chief legal counsel to testify before Collins’ commission weeks ago, and from what I remember there’s been an open invitation for Collins and his crew to testify at the joint committee.

Thoughts?