Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: Kirk’s brain swelling subsides, skull reattached
Posted in:
* From the Chicago News Cooperative…
A newly retired state representative who shepherded two utility bills through the House in 2010 and 2011 landed a new job last month as the utilities’ lobbyist, a practice government watchdog groups say should be banned.
Former state Rep. Kevin McCarthy, an Orland Park Democrat who served 14 years in the Illinois House, retired in late December after sponsoring the controversial ComEd “Smart-Grid” legislation and, the year before, a much-debated bill AT&T wanted. On Jan. 26, McCarthy filed paperwork with the Illinois Secretary of State’s Office to serve as a lobbyist under a new firm he created, KMAC Consulting. He lists two clients so far: AT&T Illinois and its affiliates, and ComEd.
The practice of state lawmakers becoming lobbyists after retiring is not uncommon. Government reform groups have criticized the practice because they say it creates a perception elected officials are serving their own interests, rather than the public’s, when they collect a paycheck from firms whose interests they aided through legislation. The lobbying rail at the Illinois Capitol in Springfield includes at least a dozen former lawmakers on any given day.
“The problem is they know the inside game,” Illinois Campaign for Political Reform Executive Director Brian Gladstein said. “They know who the people are pulling the strings. They have the relationships with the people who can get a bill passed.”
Gladstein’s organization tried for several years to slow the so-called revolving door of lawmaking to lobbying through legislation that would require a lawmaker to wait six months between leaving the General Assembly and registering as a lobbyist. The bill died after failing to garner enough support from legislators.
I told subscribers about McCarthy’s pending ComEd lobbying when he stepped down.
ICPR’s proposed six-month ban on lobbying wouldn’t do a whole lot in some cases. For instance, if a legislator retired at the end of the May 31st spring session, he or she could start lobbying well before the next spring session began.
* The Question: Should legislators be banned from lobbying for six months to a year after they leave the General Assembly? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: Kirk’s brain swelling subsides, skull reattached
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
They should have an equal right to employment. They happen to have a unique set of skills that companies, unions and others are seeking when hiring an advocate. They are not in an official public capacity any longer.
Comment by 1776 Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:25 am
I’d go for a five year ban. Buying and selling influence has got to stop in all aspects of our government.
Comment by Mouthy Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:26 am
@ 1776: Not sure it’s the skill set that is unique, just the willingness to use ‘em that way.
Voted “no ban”, but wondered why Sears & CME weren’t KMAC clients.
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:28 am
We would rather see a list of advertisers calling editors to steer stories their way or perhaps donors to the Chicago News Cooperative. That could help readers/viewers better understand the spin being laid on them by the news media.
McCarthy is a talented guy who is a good catch for these clients
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:30 am
No ban at all.
Our elected officials should know right from wrong, if they dont, we need better voters.
Comment by Kimbo Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:31 am
I voted for one year and would have voted with “Mouthy” for 5 year. Otherwise little prevents a company from having a conversation with a legislator about a lobbying job in the near term. Even if it isn’t pure quid-pro-quo, there absolutely is a conflict of interest.
I don’t blame ComEd for doing this; they’re just playing the game well.
Comment by Robert Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:32 am
==Our elected officials should know right from wrong, if they dont, we need better voters.==
Good luck with that.
Comment by Robert Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:32 am
Yes, I voted for one year, but I actually think it should be longer. This isn’t necessarily uncommon, when some employee’s are hired at companies they have to sign a contract to not join a competitor’s workforce for so many years if they quit their job.
While it’s not an apples to apples comparison, there is president to have a waiting period for a certain kind of employment. This would just be something that is part of being a legislator, if one so chooses to run, no one is forced into being a legislator after all. There is an obvious conflict of interest here and a fix is in order.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:34 am
Kevin sold out long before his “retirement” while acting as a lackey for Rod and Jay. I guess they taught him how to make some real money while still collecting that sweet state pension that he tried to take from everybody else. Maybe you should voluntarily donate that pension back to the state since you were so concerned about its cost before you quit to cash in.
Oh yeah. I voted 1 year but it should really be a permanent ban.
==unique set of skills==
That is really laughable.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:36 am
I like the one year ban as a basic ethics issue, but really how do you stop someone after they have left office? So they do something else with the company for awhile (advisor, policy, historian) and get promoted to lobster as soon as the year passes. What is different?
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:40 am
yes 1 year. This would be a great chance for springfield to show its fake reformer credentials. They did this in dc a few years ago and instead of becoming “lobbyists” these guys became “strategic advisors”.
Comment by shore Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:41 am
Bill I don’t agree with you often but right on. McCarthy is exactly what is wrong with Illinois politics. I wonder if he would be a lobbyist making mega $$ if he didn’t sponsor those bills for his benifactors. One hand washes the other and both hands go into the tax payers pockets.
Comment by Fed up Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:46 am
I say no ban because it really won’t do anything. Per Shore’s point, there will just be a way around it. Bills like this look good on the surface, but are not real reform. I don’t pretend to have the answer to what could be done to rectify this situation, but it has to be something much more substantial than a simple “ban.”
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:56 am
What ever happened to the citizen legislator, the guy or gal who goes to Washington DC or Springfield for a couple of terms to lift us all up and then return to their former lives?
Lifetime ban IMO. 1 year just makes them wait a bit before cashing in. At my age one year only lasts about 3 months - just too short.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:57 am
does their influence go away after a year? This is pointless and silly attempts at reform. In every other business in the world, people make lateral moves based on the skills and knowledge they have. Like him or not, McCarthy effectivly guided legislation through the GA. He knows how to do that. It’s not black magic. It’s knowledge of the system and that knowledge and skill is marketable. He’s allowed to make money from it like anyone else.
Comment by L.S. Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 9:57 am
Perhaps a little KGB style “declassifying” upon a legislator leaving office would be in order.
Or just a non-compete clause?
Actually, I voted no. I don’t really want to restrict the kind of employment a former public servant does, or when he or she can obtain that employment.
Comment by Cheswick Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:00 am
A year seems reasonable, just to get distance from a quid pro quo. But it’s no cureall by any means.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:01 am
===Unique set of skills=== I think Blagojevich has the same skills.
I voted for the one year ban. It doesn’t really bother me what the legislators do after one year of retirement. However, I think the real question is was the job offered before the bills were passed. And no one will really ever know what negotiations took place for McCarthy’s pushing of those bills.
But we have cut down on corruption in Illinois, haven’t we?
=Bill @ 9:36 - Spot on the pension comment. Funny how the folks that are screaming the loudest for everyone else to be cut are the ones working the hardest to preserve their own piece of the pie.
Comment by Irish Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:02 am
I voted for a year, though I would like to ban them forever, but I know that’s not reasonable or fair.
I’m more concerned about legislators who are figuratively “lobbying” for these major utilities and companies before they leave office.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:07 am
I voted no. Though I support the idea of a ban, the realist in me knows there’s just too many ways around it for this to be anything but a feel good, do nothing proposal, as others have noted (see U.S. Congress).
Comment by TwoFeetThick Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:08 am
State employees have a similar restriction, known as the revolving door rule, which forces them to wait 1-yr before taking employment at a firm in which they worked closely/contracted with while they were with the state……..I see no reason why our lawmakers shouldn’t be held to a similar standard. For this reason, my vote was for a 1 year ban.
Comment by TCB Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:13 am
I voted NO ban and this is why;
I want complete transperancy when a legislator leaves either chamber, and goes into the private sector, most likely to lobby.
If you think “ABC, Inc.” hires a former legislator and puts them on as a “consultant” for 6 months or so to wait to lobby, what do you think that legislator is doing??? Sitting on their hands and saying, “I have known ‘X’ for 20 years, but I can’t call them …”
It’s like being the “Food and Beverage Chairman” and moving to “Entertainment Chairman” while waiting for the Gaming License in Casino! Really, are we going to pretend all this is above board.
Make it completely above board, make it no wait, and make it full disclosure, or we all will continue to have, “I am not lobbying here, I am just the consultant for these guys!” story over and over again.
No Wait!
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:14 am
The first year should be greeting at Wal-Mart.
Comment by tobor Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:32 am
OW, What do you think of the liklihood gov’t will EVER be transparent? Lots of things would be possible but first you would have to have the very officials we wish to view in their “altogether” vote that in. Never. Gonna. Happen.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:34 am
The longer the ban, the better, if we want legislatures to serve the public interest instead of their future employer’s special interest.
Legislators understand this problem when it comes to state employees, which is why they imposed the one-year waiting period. It’s another case of do as I say, not as I do. Do any defenders of the status quo also defend this gross hypocrisy?
Comment by reformer Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:35 am
- dupage dan -
So, you want to fraud of “Hey, I am just a consultant, or Food and Beverage Chairman for these guys …”
or…
“I am leaving to work for ‘X’ as their Chief Lobbyist and I will see you all next week on the ‘X’ Bill …”
Don’t … and then tell me it’s raining.
That is what I want, I am not naive to think all will be perfect, (it won’t) with complete transperancy, I just WANT complete transperancy.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:40 am
I voted for a year, but agree with most it should be longer.
Long enough that they don’t have a lot of inside connections left that owe them favors.
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:58 am
Fact is, former legisltors have as much right to redress their government as does any other taxpayer. To limit ones stated right to redress their government goes against the Constitution of the United States!
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 11:01 am
This begs the question of whether prospects for personal financial gain influenced his duties and obligations as a public servant.
This would make me angry if it wasn’t so sad.
I didn’t believe this when I originally heard it, since I thought he had more self-respect than most.
Any sense of pride or dignity apparently goes right out the window when you’re elected in Illinois. It instantly becomes a game of “What’s in it for me?”.
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 11:04 am
Interesting to note the 1 year ban, the longest ban offered, is currently receiving an overwhelming majority of votes.
And that’s coming from a readership that, by and large, tends to be more active and involved in shaping IL politics than most.
If those are the informal results on here, I wonder what a poll of the general public would look like?
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 11:12 am
Noticed the vote totals, too, and I had voted the same way. Just seems like a no-brainer to me, even though I feel we over-regulate too much stuff.
Comment by Downstate commissioner Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 11:25 am
I voted 1 yr. but would have voted for a longer ban. Just because it’s not illegal doesn’t make it ethical.
Comment by Soccertease Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 11:26 am
I voted for one year because it is the best option being offered…having said that, it still isn’t long enough. The ban should be for at least 5 years.
Comment by Chevy owner/Ford County Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 11:38 am
Voted 1 year - in this specific case it was the worst kept secret in the Capitol last year. As if there was not enough problems with the ComEd bill - you would think all the talk about the lead sponsor planning to “retire” to go lobby for them would have turned off some votes.
P.S. Maybe lobster McCarthy can tell his client they don’t need to advertise for their bill on the Blog anymore
Comment by SportShoz Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 11:51 am
I imagine others hit my point (and more eloquently too), but I’ll say it certainly creates the perception of a conflict if in December I am pushing my bill and then in January I pocket cash for repping it as a lobbyist.
Likely makes everyone who voted for my measure suspect my motivation.
I think a one year prohibition is fair. Let me lobby for increased human services dollars, but not for smartgrid.
Comment by Mongo Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 12:26 pm
I voted 1 year, but as others have pointed out, I’m not sure it would work. It seems it is a tradition to find new and more slimey ways to peddle your infuence.
Comment by Paul Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 12:35 pm
If they want to earn the right to lobby, they should have to work for two years for the state in a front line (not managerial) position OR wait five years (and not as a “consultant”).
Imagine if McCarthy had to work for two years in a Driver’s License facility or a prison or a hospital or a park before getting his payoff from ComEd.
I know it is impractical, but still…
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 1:44 pm
Actually, McCarthy is actually less a concern than the staffers who switch from the GA to consulting. Many of them are at least as well connected to both legislators and other staff and they are often more knowledgeable about the craft of developing bills. If you have ever seen a former staffer in a stakeholders’ meeting when the legislator in charge treats the now-lobbiest as a staffer and directs them to craft bill language, you understand the influence they can have. I have not seen a former legislator treated that way.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 1:52 pm
In the above post, I wrote “consulting” but I meant lobbying.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 1:53 pm
2 years would be better…
Comment by bored now Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 2:29 pm
I voted for one year and would have voted for more. As an independent contractor, I sign contracts with non-compete clauses all the time, typically for six months, and I do regard corporate lobbying as competing with us regular folks. As for them finding loopholes: Of course, they will always find loopholes; we have to move them around occasionally so things run halfway decently for awhile.
Comment by yinn Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 3:21 pm
As a State employee I cannot work for any firm that I oversee for a period of one year. If I have such a restriction over a $5,000 contract it makes no sense that a legislator can work for and pass a bill worth millions and then turn around and work for that company. It reinforces the “State for Sale” image of Illinois.
I think the ban should be for a minimum of three years and wouldn’t argue against 5.
Comment by Robert0117 Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 3:52 pm
No ban, but a 50% surtax on any earnings above his state pay for 5 years. Idea from Instapundit - a “Revolving Door Tax”
Comment by Vinron Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 4:00 pm
I voted no ban. Because I do not see the point of it. If the presumption is that members of the GA will vote for bills based on the fact that in one year or six months they will be made an exclusive lobbyist for an interest group then I think that is absurd. There are hundreds of legal ways to reward a former GA member for a vote, it doesn’t have to be a job as a lobbyist. In many ways I think that Jack Abramoff who writes in his book “Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth about Washington Corruption from America’s Most Notorious Lobbyist,”is right when he argues the best candidates to be lobbyists are not former legislators, but younger highly skilled legislative staffers.
Comment by Rod Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 4:27 pm
I voted for a 1-year ban but would have voted for a 5-year ban had that been an option.
We need to stop this practice. I second Shock & Awww(e).
Comment by Sunshine Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 4:50 pm
Would a ban even be constitutional? Lobbying the government should fall under the freedom to petition from the first amendment, right?
Comment by Timmeh Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 4:58 pm
I voted for a full year ban only because a longer option wasn’t available. I’m a lobbyist and have been one for more than 10 years. I didn’t take any shortcuts to get where I am, and it’s bad for our industry when a member can simply walk out of the General Assembly and into a sweet gig like this. It demeans every lobbyist who isn’t a former elected official.
Coming up through the ranks, we had to give our hard-earned money to the right people, even when we couldn’t afford it. We had to kiss the backsides of legislators who knew far less than we did about a particular issue, just to not offend them. We had to scramble to sign clients or find employers who were so naive and unconnected that we looked like insiders to them. That ain’t easy.
Sure, we could have run for office ourselves, but instead we typically worked our tails off going door-to-door for some young hot shot who had a better ballot name or a better Buddha than we did. We sucked it up and knocked on doors, got a few elected, and gave them more money every time they asked.
And now they’re stealing our jobs? Pick a lane legislators. You want to make laws? Run for office. You want to make money? Become a lobbyist. But for all of us poor lobbyists who need to make a living out here in the real world, please don’t take away more of these sweet inside jobs that are still available to those of us who weren’t good at math in college. This is all we have left, and there are families to think about.
We are the 99%. The General Assembly is the 1% and everything is rigged in their favor. Enough. Save the Lobbyists — Occupy Capitol Street.
Who’s with me?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 5:28 pm
I think five or ten years is best.
When Mike Jacobs gets out of the Senate and goes to work as a lobbyist for ComEd, then he, McCarthy, and Denny Jacobs can all three have lunch together every week like the Merchants of Death in “Thank You for Smoking.”
Six months is a joke. A year is a joke too.
Comment by NorthernIL Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 5:29 pm
I voted for the 1-yr ban, even though the pols would find some way around it. Like the commissioner above, I think there is too much regulation, but as long as regular state professionals must abide by a 1-year “revolving door” policy that has no firm criteria, but is instead subject merely to the whim of the Executive Inspector General, then a 1-year ban (or the same revolving door policy) should apply to the pols.
Comment by JustaJoe Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 6:02 pm
I was torn on this one. Mike McClain is a great lobbyist. If he ran for governor I’d walk door-to-door for him. And he’s not the only one I admire in the ex-members club.
But to paraphrase Speaker Madigan’s 1997 inaugural speech: The House is an institution that I love. It — and its integrity — are bigger than one man or one party.
Anyone who doesn’t believe in protecting the integrity of the institutions of our democracy doesn’t belong on the floor or the rail.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 12:01 am
I voted for 1 year, but I think 8 years would be much more effective.
Comment by tomhail Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 5:36 am
I’d prefer a lifetime ban, myself. Rather tired of feeling like my government is owned by special interests and that all us citizens get to do is vote.
Comment by Aldyth Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 7:35 am
They should be banned for a period equal to the time served in the General Assembly.
Comment by Yossarian Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 8:05 am
“Unique set of skills”, A Liam Neeson line from an appropriately named film “Taken”.
“Bryan: I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don’t have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.”
Comment by Mouthy Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 8:54 am