Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Springfield council talks about drop dead date
Next Post: Adlai on Madigan and Daley
Posted in:
* The Senate passed this bill last week by a 52-1 vote…
Provides that if expenditures are incurred for hosting receptions, benefits, and other large gatherings held for purposes of goodwill or otherwise to influence executive, legislative, or administrative action and if the total number of State officials invited to such an event is equal to or greater than the number of State legislators in the smaller minority caucus of either the House of Representatives or the Senate, as defined in the rules of those chambers, then only the total amount of the expenditure, the date of the event, and the estimated number of officials in attendance shall be reported.
That language is specifically designed to help out the Senate Republican caucus. The existing statute allows the limited disclosure for events when there are “25 or more State officials invited.” Before last year’s elections, the Senate Republicans had 24 members, so lobbyists would invite another Republican official to make it 25.
But now the Senate Republicans have just 19 caucus members. That makes things a bit tougher, and any event with just the SGOPs requires full disclosure for each member. Something needed to be done, and it was. At least in the Senate.
* This was also part of the bill…
Requires each registered lobbyist to report any business or familial relationship that he or she has with an official.
* Sen. Mike Jacobs (D-East Moline) was the only “No” vote. Scott Reeder takes us down memory lane…
Well, at least the vote didn’t end in a fistfight.
But the Illinois Senate did give state Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline, a good punch in the snout when it voted 52-1 last week to require that all lawmakers disclose relatives who are lobbyists.
Two years ago, Jacobs and state Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, got into an altercation after McCarter made an issue of Jacobs sponsoring a bill that Jacobs’ father, a lobbyist, was pushing.
During the scuffle, McCarter said he got punched.
Jacobs said he didn’t do it.
One thing is certain: it was an in-your-face confrontation seldom seen on the floor of the Illinois Senate.
The issue of lawmaker relatives lobbying re-emerged last Thursday when the Senate approved Senate Bill 1361. Jacobs was the only person in the chamber to vote against the measure that requires all lawmakers to disclose any relatives who are lobbyists.
“This is really just a baby step in the area of ethics, but it’s a step in the right direction,” said state Sen. Darin LaHood, R-Dunlap.
McCarter added, “It’s essential that everyone in government be transparent – even Mike Jacobs.”
For his part, Jacobs says he is the most transparent person in the state Senate.
“This is just a case of politicians trying to make themselves look better than they really are,” he said. “I refused to play along. This is just a game of Gotcha!”
Jacobs is up for reelection next year. He should’ve voted for that bill.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:37 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Springfield council talks about drop dead date
Next Post: Adlai on Madigan and Daley
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
He’s not the same as his father, whom was an adept politician and truly loved by his constituents, but Mike Jacobs is still part of the southern Democrat Rock Island County machine…so if he wants to run for re-election, he won’t have much problem.
Comment by Captain Illini Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:57 am
Speaking of political brand names, the Jacobs have had quite a long run in the QC.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:22 am
We are deeply grateful for this new loophole to help us grab the free feedbag
Chairman -desginate DeadBeatJoe will do his hamhanded best to show his appreciation ASAP.
Fire,Aim, Ready
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:55 am
Maybe, if the SGOP tries “real hard” they can get a “2″ in front of their Caucus total … maybe.
McCarter needs Jacobs, like “Tom” needs “Jerry” in the old cartoons.
Just think how much more we would think of McCarter had he not asked the SA of Sangamon to get involved and, instead, acted like a statesman.
I don’t know if this specific “vote” will doom Jacobs, but it sure doesn’t help. Remember, the SGOP will be helping Jacob’s opponent, so you have to give that some weight in Jacob’s favor …
That said, you vote FOR this Bill if your Jacobs.
Bad Form.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:27 pm