Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

In agreeing to hire a former aide to Gov. Pat Quinn to lobby on its behalf, the town of Normal on Monday joined an estimated 140 other units of local government using tax money to try and gain a toehold in the Capitol.

According to a study by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, local governments and public agencies in Illinois spent more than $7.4 million on outside help in 2010 to try and heighten their profiles and gain better access to the policymakers in the Statehouse.

David Morrison, acting director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said he launched the study thinking that lobbyists for local governments were unneeded because local state lawmakers would be looking out for the communities in their districts.

But, he said, there are some factors that appear to make it a reasonable expense for some local governments.

For example, a city may be represented by two Republicans at a time when Democrats control state government.

“A city may think they need to hire someone in order to get face time with the people in charge,” Morrison said.

* The Question: Do you think hiring Statehouse lobbyists can benefit many local governments, or is it mostly a waste of taxpayer money? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

online surveys

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:24 am

Comments

People say “lobbyist” like it’s a synonym for “wharf rat.” That’s ridiculous.

Most smaller municipalities don’t have anyone on staff who understands the state budget process, or who can do bill tracking — or who can read an innocent-looking piece of proposed legislation and understand the incredible impact it will have a on municipality’s financial situation.

It’s smart of Normal to hire someone who understands the process and the system, and who can go right to work advocating for their interests without a huge (and expensive) learning curve.

Comment by Soccermom Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:32 am
We voted “yes”
Clearly lobbyists for local governments can be a big help because much of what happens occurs away from the GA….We know that is a shock to a good part of Capt Fax World, but lots of decisions get made, money spent, etc without GA.
Local legislators can only bird dog so much.
Same goes for statewide associations
There needs to be specific goals.

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:33 am
state government is a sprawling (not very well run) enterprise, which can have many positive or negative impacts on a local government–deliberately or accidentally. state reps cant help if they arent aware of the problems and remedies, which can be buried in agency actions. so yes, it helps to have someone calling attention to problems to get them fixed (tradl def). i never heard a rep or senator say screw em to a local govt, simply bec of difference of party affiliation.

Comment by langhorne Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:34 am
Total waste of taxpayers money. This is what we elect public officials to do. Beyond ridiculous to delegate this obvious public function to private firms.

Typically this is just a money laundering scheme where campaign contributors get public money kicked-back to them in the form of lobbying fees. It’s an obvious scam that most IL reporters are apparently too dim to follow.

Comment by too obvious Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:35 am
My major problem with local government lobbying efforts is that they often use taxpayer money to lobby against good government. A prime example is local governments (and their respective municipal leagues) regularly lobbying against the FOIA.

Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:35 am
It’s a sad state of affairs that municipal governments need to lobby the State, but I get that it has to be done. I don’t like it. I think it’s a disgrace that local governments feel they almost have to hire lobbying firms to be heard over other interests, but that’s the game in Illinois.

Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:36 am
Yes. These additional advocates can benefit local governments.

The disappointing part is that admitting this serves as a further indictment of the existing advocates: the sitting legislators who already represent those local areas. If those legislators were more responsive and effective, those lobbyists would not be necessary in the first place.

Fact is, those lobbyists should not be necessary. Legislators failing to effectively represent their local groups and interests should feel the heat during election time - not have lobbyists pick up the slack for their shortcomings.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:39 am
as someone who has lobbied in the past for a non profit, I voted yes because I know legislators have to look out for a lot of people and communities. local government lobbyists provide insights on what their specific community needs/wants are and help them walk through legislative and administrative hoops; it isn’t always just lobbying the General Assembly, it is knowing government programs and how they work and how to access them. of course, like most things, there is abuse and waste, but depending on what a unit of local government is looking for, it can be beneficial.

Comment by Susiejones Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:40 am
I voted that it’s largely a waste of money because most of the small communities are already represented by the Municipal League and the small town mayors have the ears of their Reps and Senators. Cities over 100,000 population, in my opinion, are the ones that benefit the most. I agree that most associations and muni leagues can’t handle all the issues but they generally do a good job representing their constituents.

Comment by woodchuck Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:41 am
@Just Observing: wish I read your point before casting my vote.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:41 am
If the town of Normal would have hired someone to be a government relations liaison, or a legislative director, or any number of other titles, people wouldn’t really question it.

But contracting with a “lobbyist” is somehow wrong.

Comment by dave Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:42 am
obvious, and certainly you have some specific examples to share with us. So this new lobbyist was a campaign contributor to someone in Normal government; how much, and to whom?

Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:42 am
The reality is that most legislators have a different agenda far apart from the local municipality. Ever heard of “mandates” and their well thought out cost demands on local government.

Comment by ""Edge" Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:46 am
Sadly, I voted “yes.” Too often, both local and state elected officials aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer and a pro is needed as liaison to effectively represent a community in a legislature or even at the county level.

Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:48 am
My agency couldn’t survive without our in-house liaisons, so it would seem wise for Normal to have someone looking out for them. Whether it should be in-house or a hired gun is a judgment call. The hired gun might cost a lot more per hour than an in-house employee, but could still be cheaper for the relatively few hours worked than paying a full-time staffer, and could be a lot more effective.

Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:48 am
Get rid of the lobbyists and let the local elected officials do their jobs of advocating on behalf of their constituencies. Why is that so hard to comprehend.

Comment by obvious Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:51 am
@Just Observing: For the record, the FOIA is such a poorly written piece of legislation that any rewrite would be helpful. It is overly broad and does not give agencies the time to adequately deal with release of information. 5 day requirement-in some big companies it takes more than that time to get an acknowledgement of your requests receipt.

Comment by obvious Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:54 am
At the risk of being too cute by half, hiring Statehouse lobbyists can benefit many local elected officials and still be not wasteful and even injurious to the taxpayers.

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:57 am
Let’s keep in mind that not all municipalities (or townships) are alike. The Illinois Municipal League can’t be expected to lobby for each individual member’s specific needs. Certainly Normal is a great example of, well, an abnormal town. They have made electric vehicles and public transportation a very high priority, which gives them some unusual needs that are not shared by other communities.

Add to that their town v. gown issues, and it makes sense to have someone on the ground in Springfield who can make sure they’re getting the support they deserve from the State.

And all of you “we hate Chicago” folks out there — don’t you think it makes sense for downstate communities to hire savvy representatives in Springfield, to make sure their communities’ needs are fairly considered?

Comment by Soccermom Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 11:59 am
The fact that this is a legitimate “question of the day” epitomizes what is wrong with Illinois government. Every community has an elected Representative and Senator who should be dedicated to the communities best interest, but as most are mere puppets of the legislative leadership they are unable or unwilling to do their jobs. A sad state of affairs.

Comment by downstate hack Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:02 pm
yes, just like have a lawyer represent them in court and a accountant represent them in audits is a good idea.

As our socila structure evolves we create more complex areas which require specialists to navigate them successfully. A lobster is a specialist in passing or blocking laws, dont leave home without one.

Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:02 pm
=== Typically this is just a money laundering scheme where campaign contributors get public money kicked-back to them in the form of lobbying fees. It’s an obvious scam that most IL reporters are apparently too dim to follow. ===

This may be the case in certain instances, but the vast majority of local government campaigns are very, very low dollar campaigns — not enough to engage in quid pro quo.

Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:04 pm
=== @Just Observing: For the record, the FOIA is such a poorly written piece of legislation that any rewrite would be helpful. It is overly broad and does not give agencies the time to adequately deal with release of information. 5 day requirement-in some big companies it takes more than that time to get an acknowledgement of your requests receipt. ===

I disagree with you. First, there are provisions to allow a public body to extend the five day timeline, including simply asking the requester if they would agree to an extended timeline (however, public bodies hardly ever take advantage of this). Second, from what I have seen, public bodies oppose nearly all efforts to strengthen the FOIA, not just the five day timeline. They decry the compliance costs of FOIA (a core, primary function of government) while at the same time spending money on non-essential activities such as movie nights, chair decorating contests, easter egg hunts, etc.

Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:10 pm
No.
We have a very entrenched ‘network’ that is part of the lobbyists. This just creates more kickbacks. If an individual can get the ear of a political friend and successfully make a case for the municipality, it just creates more backroom deals. On the flipside, if that lobbyist is unsuccessful, the municipality has nothing of value in return for the tax-payers dime. Lobbists are a gamble of popularity. Better to have the residents of the municipality hit thier representatives up with the municipal message. This would be leass expensive and more productive.

Comment by Pete Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:13 pm
For many towns like Normal, you’ve got a city manager and a small staff. Getting the taxes collected, the zoning approved, running the police and fire departments and picking up the garbage is where they should be focused. Would you rather pay a lobbyist $50K or hire a full-time employee at a similar salary plus healthcare and pensions?

I didn’t think so. This can be a smart investment for a lot of municipalities in Illinois.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:15 pm
I’ve always thought that Chuck Sweeny’s piece from a while back on Mike Cassidy and his defense of municipal lobbyists is one of the best ever written. It’s the perfect counterpoint to the Pentagraph’s editorial criticizing the hiring of John Kamis. Then again, Kamis is no Cassidy…

http://www.rrstar.com/insight/x149330876/Chuck-Sweeny-This-is-why-Rockford-needs-its-own-lobbyist

Comment by Empty Chair Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:17 pm
Is anyone able to provide a specific example where such lobbyist hiring resulted in cost positive benefit to a local government?

Comment by Such As Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:20 pm
Hey Hack, you are wrong. Not every small community has its own representative. And the inevitable conflicts between communities in a legislative district always arise. Just today some media reported 3,000 AT&T employees will leave Hoffman Estates for Schaumburg and other nearby communities. What good would a state rep or state senator be able to do if they represented both communities?

In my local government career we used lobbyists and it helped greatly. We were current on legislation favorable to us. We were able to understand and then testify against legislation harmful to us. We followed the money too, applying for and receiving many grants.

And for Too Obvious, wow that was a rant. Local elected officials are not experts in the legislative process. They are normal people who choose to give something back to the community in which they live. Absolutely not a single one of them can master every Springfield legislative proposal, whether complex or simple. It ain’t possible.

Comment by Mongo Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:24 pm
Such As, I can. For three years we paid a lobbyist $20k, in partnership with three neighboring communities who also aid $20k annually. That’s 60+60+60 for $180k in three years.

We received about $1.8 million in grants the next four years. The other two received 2.2 and 1.5 in the same period of time.

This was clean, transparent, ethical, and ROI was incredible. My taxpayers definitely benefited from it, and our elected officials couldn’t generate that kind of benefit.

Comment by Mongo Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:30 pm
this has been going on for generations.
zzzzzzzzzzz

Comment by shore Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:35 pm
Mongo
So you can make a direct connection to the fees paid to the specific receipt of $1.8 million in grants? You would not have one raise received the grants? What where the grants for?

Comment by Such As Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:43 pm
=== and our elected officials couldn’t generate that kind of benefit ===

Aye, there’s the rub.

A bit disturbing, methinks, when our elected advocates have become so ineffective and unresponsive to local concerns that locals must hire advocates (lobbyists) to pick up the slack.

Meanwhile, those ineffective and unresponsive elected officials get re-elected thanks in part to lowered public expectatons and the lobbyists who got the job for them.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:47 pm
Truth is this: hiring a lobbyist usually works.
I have a customer who tried to get legislation passed for three years. They hired a lobbyist for the first time this session and the bill is now on PQ’s desk waiting for his signature.

I think that there should be some reasonable limitations set on the public sector use of lobbyists however since taxpayer dollars are in play. Maybe these limitations have already been set in place.

Comment by Jake From Elwood Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 12:56 pm
State government is so big and complex–as other posters have said–that the amateurs who run most municipalities couldn’t possibly keep track of legislation that could help or hurt them. Nothing particularly nefarious about that. Just that the word “lobbyist” creates a bogeyman in the eyes of many. In many states there are regulations about the extent to which public money can be spent on lobbying.

Comment by Ray del Camino Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 1:08 pm
It is just as effective, if not more so, to have the local elected official make the drive to Springfield a couple of times a session. They can get face time as easily as any lobbyist and they can convey exactly what they need.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 1:20 pm
As someone who worked for a unit of government and hired a lobbyist, I can tell you having them is hugely important. I couldn’t be everywhere at once (my office and Springfield), and while my State Rep and State Senator were always reachable and helpful, they didn’t sit on every committee and were not often aware of bills that were important to me, or that might be important to me.

I realize it’s hard to justify using public money to lobby another public body, but it is really no different then having part-time (on-contract) agency liaisons.

Comment by Just Me Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 1:25 pm
Voted “Yes” under two goals of the hiring Muni…

1) Have very specific goal(s) of the lobbyist of what specific items you want done.

2) Make sure whomever is hired CAN reach the goals of #1.

A Muni, County, large city like a Rockford, whoever, those are the goal of my “Yes”…

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 1:29 pm
Such As, a point the three agencies all discussed with the lobbyist and amongst ourselves. Fact is we didn’t get the grants before. Fact is we did get the grants after. Fact is our lobbyist knew people we didn’t. Nothing untoward, but grant opportunities we could prepare for and apply for if we knew about them. Let me emphasize the “nothing untoward” comment. We also applied for some grants and were rejected. Merit helps the most, but knowledge helps too. Our lobbyist helped with knowledge.

Comment by Mongo Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 1:46 pm
@just observing:

Since you think the FOIA process is such a breeze I invite you to come to my agency and take over for the ONE person that handles the gazillion requests. Good luck. Let me know how easy you find it. You may “disagree” with the issue of compliance costs but you are totally and completely wrong with that criticism. It’s ridiculous that you have to take up the time of, in our case, one entire staff person to handle all of these requests. Other agencies have divisions of people to handle this. I don’t know of any of us that are against releasing information. Take all of it that you want. But the law stinks. It’s not practical and it just causes attitudes in the public that are unwarranted. Again, if you think FOIA is such a breeze then I’ve got an office for you to come do it for a while.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 1:56 pm
As to the question, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to have a lobbyist. Everybody else has lobbyists. Why shouldn’t towns have their own lobbyist?

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 1:58 pm
If it is more cost-effective than an in-house IG department then yes it’s a good idea. If not, then no. It depends on the cost of the contractor, needs of the municipality etc etc.

Comment by Will Caskey Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 2:03 pm
Regarding Kamis. I saw this article on Monday and thought it was interesting that he was recommended by a Republican State Senator.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/government-and-politics/normal-city-council-to-consider-hiring-lobbyist/article_59a0fc58-fca2-11e2-b1e6-001a4bcf887a.html

Also, anyone who has worked with John knows he’s top notch. He was responsible for the implementation of Budgeting for Results and was in the middle of a lot of very difficult negotiations for the Governor. What the articles have missed is that he used to lobby on behalf of the City of Chicago… and therefore is an ideal fit to represent a municipality.

Comment by TruthTeller Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 2:15 pm
It is a multi-edged sword.
On one side all the nepotism arguments and ‘You are a Rep in a Dem world’ problem.
On the other side if you really know the ropes and understand the players you can get a lot done.

Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 2:31 pm
Voted no. Just perpetuates spending. Most of these places will end up lobbying for stuff they don’t want to raise taxes for locally. I thought the Illinois municipal league looked out for city interest?

Comment by Downstater Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 2:44 pm
I’m not a fan of lobbyists, per se, because their existence means that politicians are spending money and enacting legislation that tend to favor some innocent people and not favor other innocent people.

But…

In the current system, it can be a positive for communities to have lobbyists to advocate on their behalf on a variety of issues, whether they be appropriations, regulations, mandates, etc. I donh’t like the system, but since it’s the one we have, everyone should get the best legal advantage they can to make it work in their favor.

Comment by Fan of the Game Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 3:45 pm
@Demoralized

I did not say compliance was a “breeze” but public bodies need to recognize and treat it as primary function of government and devote the necessary resources to comply. Perhaps the issue with your agency is that you only have one person dealing with FOIA requests. If you tell me the name of your agency, I would be more than happy to look at the agency’s expenditures and recommend redirecting expenditures toward FOIA compliance.

Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 3:51 pm
It’s more than a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Every organization has special interests, including the thousands of units of local government in Illinois. Unlike some of the obvious public employees who comment here, I do not equate the special interests of local governments with the public good. They are using public money to lobby for what are truly special and private interests, e.g. grants, TIFs, condemnations, pensions, etc.

“Associations” supported by “dues” paid by school districts and municipalities on behalf of the respective government employees such as the Illinois Municipal League, Illinois Association of School Boards, Illinois Principals Association, etc., etc. are all spending public funds to lobby.

When local governments – of many types, directly and indirectly – spend public funds to lobby for special government interests, they are using tax dollars to oppose the general public good, and against the interests of many of the persons who paid those same tax dollars.

Local governments have no First Amendment right to lobby, and could be prohibited from doing so. The First Amendment’s action is to restrain government, not to empower it. While every person has a First Amendment right to speak to and petition state government, government as such does not. If anything, it is an implied power of government subject to regulation.

It ought to be as illegal to spend public funds to lobby legislators as it is to spend public funds in election campaigns of the same legislators.

Comment by Anon III Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 4:17 pm
It just seems to me this is something that could be done as part of someone’s job, rather than make it full time or hire a firm to lobby a couple of times a year.

Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 4:34 pm
agree. Mike Cassidy as a lobbyist takes things back years. should just hand out checks in front of the doors of the House. sorry - Al ronan already did that. people that hire cassidy should get what they deserve.

Comment by chicago Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 9:46 pm
Cassidy - they get what they deserve. jail os priceless!!!!

Comment by city friend Wednesday, Aug 7, 13 @ 9:53 pm
A difficult question without a black or white answer. A lobbyist is certainly helpful for some, but also open to corruption.

At the same time, it uses up scarce economic resources, it is economically inefficient for the society as a whole. A better solution would be to develop and institutionalize basic principles that legislators must follow that would eliminate the need for one subordinate government in need to lobby another.

Democracy really needs to be reformed before it implodes, as it has done in some of the most highly advanced societies in the past century, with disastrous results.

Comment by Cod Thursday, Aug 8, 13 @ 8:39 am