Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Jackson announces committee
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Frerichs-Myers; Poll; Flider; Book; Target feed (Use all CAPS in password - and use yesterday’s password)
Posted in:
First, the setup. This is from Illinois Campaign for Political Reform Director Cindi Canary:
Instead of debating how many years George Ryan should serve, our elected leaders ought to be debating what needs to be done to restore the public’s trust in government. Their answers should include restrictions on how much can be contributed to candidates and a ban on direct contributions by corporations and labor unions. Decisions about state employment and contracts should be based on merit and not decided by contributions and politics. We need reasonable restrictions on how campaigns are financed and a strong regulatory system that will enforce those laws. And we need more disclosure about lobbying practices, as well as increased sunshine on all levels of government.
Now the question: Will these ideas really clean up our government?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 7:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Jackson announces committee
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Frerichs-Myers; Poll; Flider; Book; Target feed (Use all CAPS in password - and use yesterday’s password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The only thing that will clean up any corruption-filled government is to vote the bums out. That’s the only thing they understand, loss of money, prestige and people kow-towing to them.
It bruises their egos and that’s what drives them, not the desire to do some good for the state or country. They don’t know the meaning of the phrase, “public servant.”
Comment by Disgusted Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 8:13 am
Once again Cindy offers a series goofy, simplistic ideas to overlap existing laws. Theft, bribery, extortion are already crimes. Just enforce the laws and don’t set up new trip lines to catch honest people.
Most if not nearly all who work in politics and government are honest people who will do a full days work for a day’s pay.
Helping a friend or supporter WHO DOES THE WORK, DELIVERS THE SERVICE OR PROVIDES THE MERCHANDISE ought not be a crime.
fixing test scores —-wrong
asking for a contribution to get a job — wrong
offering a donation or payment to get work — wrong
using govt resources fof campaign — wrong
ALL ARE CRIMES ALREADY
Comment by Reddbyrd Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 8:28 am
Rich, these are not just great ideas, these are the principles upon which our country was founded. When determined people get involved and stay involved, good things can happen. This applies to cleaning up government. We have been denied and are continuing to be denied these most sacred of our rights by a few of those governing; By those who exhibit low morale fiber and diminished character. It is by choice that “we the people†permit this to happen. Every day we sacrifice lives of our loved ones in a foreign land for the principles of freedom and justice, while we lose freedom and justice in our own state under the “Boot†of intimidators. Hitler nearly ruled the world by placing the “boot†of fear and intimidation on the throat of the people, while other countries stood aside and let him. It cost millions of lives. Fear, intimidation, threats, and coercion of State employees will not be tolerated or permitted as long as we are involved, as long as we say it will not happen. We must demand that it will not be tolerated, we must demonstrate by our actions that we will not stand idly by and watch it happen to us, those seated next to us, or anyone else. If you don’t speak up, if you cower under threat from some worthless hack, if you silently watch your associate be threatened and intimidated, we all suffer the consequences. Good government can work if we say to ourselves “I choose to fight, I choose to stand up, and I choose to win for us and to honor those who paid the ultimate price for freedom and justice for all.†Do you hear us governor?!!!!!
Comment by Justice Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 8:48 am
Stop letting them vote themselves payraises is a start. Stop letting them keep their campaign funds when they retire. Actually send them to jail for the maximum terms
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 8:51 am
It will work just as well as every “campaign reform” since 1973 has worked.
Rather poorly.
If you really want to lessend the impact of money on elections, ban TV and radio ads. All else just leads to a shuffle for the next loophole.
Comment by Pat Collins Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:16 am
Reddbyrd has got it right. Corruption is in the eyes of the beholden ( but not necessarily those willing to remember those debts) and, now more than at anytime in Illinois history, defined by the Medill School of Journalism pipelined to the Tribune editorial board and hosed out to the’smart media.’
Taking money for services in Government is corruption. That is a given. However, if the public perception of corruption can be stretched long and hard enough and hammered out on a daily basis by lusty smiths like Kass ( who wants Ryan’s guts for gartered ) and Zorn ( who wants the smart set to really understand what the word ‘complicated means’) and their Medill booted ink-slingers, who dog a targeted public official until brought to bay, only then will ‘the great unwashed’ understand corruption.
Whistle blowers who fall afoul of their bosses are lionized heroes; lazy slobs who licked fannies to get a City job, found the work too hard, and made no friends by dogging the work, drop a dime to the local Geraldo’s ( mensa members not) or to Fitzy, and blow smoke where there must be fire - ‘Hey, it was in the Trib its’ gotta be true.’
Gov. Ryan has been undone by politics - I thought that he took his lumps like a man. Crimes? Well, it was in the Trib - he musta done it.
Get ready for a parade of some real handsome beauties on the Medill political runway - some don’t have the legs for the stiletto’s.
Gov. Ryan is going to jail and he will die in jail. Kass and Zorn and Editorial Board are already pitching of the next Fed set.
Comment by Pat Hickey Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:24 am
Some of these ideas incumbents would love. A new grass roots candidate for office faces the insurmountable problem of fund raising. Now some want them to have their fundraising or campaign options even more limited?
In the meantime the incumbents get franking privileges at taxpayer expense, and issue press release after press release touting what their plans are while their opponents get little press or little notice.
Want to clean up Illinois Government? Do not allow politicians to donate to each others campaign. No Madigan/Cross funding of representative candidates. No Watson/Jones funding of Senate candidates. No special PAC funds for such purpose funding politicians controlled by politicians.
Who knows? Instead of the current legislative set up where everyone waits for the “Big Three” (Governor, Senate President, Speaker of the House) to set the agenda, something else may take its place once elected officials find out they are no longer obligated to vote the party line at all costs.
But then, the current system would have to enact such reforms which would help end the current system. Oh well!
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:32 am
Reddbyrd says “Helping a friend or supporter WHO DOES THE WORK, DELIVERS THE SERVICE OR PROVIDES THE MERCHANDISE ought not be a crime.” I agree with that statement only if that friend/supporter goes through a competetive bidding process that has not had the requirements played with so that the friend is the only one qualified to get the contract. If a friend truly meets the requirements and is truly the low bidder and can provide the services without having the contract tailor made for them, then I believe that is quite legal.
Comment by Little Egypt Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:32 am
The largest political entity within Illinois has been run by one political party for over 74 years. That is three years longer than the single party system that ruled the SOVIET UNION.
You will not get reform from this kind of situation. All you ever get is corruption, cronyism, a dearth of leadership, and economic stagnation. Take a look at Chicago, and you will see a toddling mess, not a toddling town. With no political competition there is no reason for change.
Typically in a single party political government, nepotism rules. You see Daleys Strogers, Hynes, Madigans, Jacksons, and Mell/Blagojevichs sharing political power within their families. We scoff at the same thing when in occurs in Haiti, Syria, Louisiana, and other backwater places, but we need to start scoffing at it here in Illinois. The very idea that Daddy Lipinski or Daddy Stroger can foist their incompetent sons on our political system is inexcusable. (I have also had enough Bushs, Clintons, Kennedys and Landrys, btw.)
Regardless of how independent downstate voters are, they are only 1/10th the voting power of Chicagoland. So, Illinois’ corruption is wholeheartedly at home in Cook County, where it rules. It is blatantly laughable that we have a governor who married into the Party, lives in Chicago, and expecting him to reform Illinois. Ridiculous.
After 30 years of single party State rule, it should surprise no one that corruption was at home in Springfield. But expecting reform from the city home to 74 years of single party rule is simply ignorant.
The fault lies with voters who refuse to be open minded enough to elect from more than one party.
Partisanship creates corruption, complacency, and failure. Voters will not be heard when they continually vote party line. Democrats have ignored Chicago voters for 50 years because they could. The Illinois GOP ignored voters for 15 and are paying the price. But they are at least listening now.
If we don’t take responsibility for our votes, we cannot expect our politicians to take responsibilities either. Throughout history, when these conditions exist, we got screwed.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:38 am
Enough with the campaign finance reform. Let the voters look at a candidate and determine for themselves if the candidate is going to represent the people or corporations.
Comment by Marie Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:43 am
I guess after her puffball comment yesterday regarding Ryan’s good and bad qualities re his sentencing, Cindi is making an effort to sound a little tougher. But, being Cindi, she hardly projects outrage. Maybe she is hoping for a state job, like that Cohen guy at the utillities
advocacy board. Over a hundred thousand, add about 50% for pension and health care, $150,000 total compensation at a minimum, wonder what she makes now.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:46 am
Boy how I wish Mike Lawrence didn’t have a muzzle on him. And, I’d sure like to hear Glenn Poshard’s comments…
Comment by Common Sense in Illinois Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:53 am
To the question: absolutely not.
The only way to get rid of “corruption” is to severely limit the power and authority of government, in this discussion at the state level. Only by severely limiting state government power to dole out checks, jobs, favorable contracts, etc. can we remove the incentive to buy influence and ultimately the fund transfers sought.
Think about it–why do corporations and labor unions donate to officeholders? Simple–because the officeholders have so much authority over corporations and unions. Do we really expect them to sit back and take whatever mandate comes
off the regulatory assembly line?
How did the song go, “Can the ocean keep from rushin’ to the shore? It’s just impossible.”
Until we restrict government all this talk about reform is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
But, alas, it seems Illinoisians are happy with a big government state constitution. But we play dumb and feign shock at public corruption.
Comment by Rick Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:54 am
30 years of one party rule? Is VM talking about republicans? As far as I know, there has always more than one political party in Illinois. Some people go to the polls and vote for the candidate of their choice and some don’t bother. The people choose their leaders.
Vanilla Man should get out and meet his new neighbors. They are democrats. If Repubs were listening to the “indepndent thinking” voters they might come up with candidates better than George Ryan, Alan Keyes, and Judy Topinka.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:58 am
Bill, it is your partisan mentality that keeps electing the crooks with the (D) next to their name. Yes, I was referring to Republicans. And really read what I wrote - I am talking about Chicago Democrats too.
You wouldn’t know this Bill, but that is what is called being independent and non-partisan.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:03 am
I might also add that “trust in government” bears some responsibility for the corruption we profess to abhor.
Any campaign to “restore trust in state government” will only make it easier for corruption to be overlooked, and thus work against the stated goal of cleaning up government.
It would seem more efficient, if the goal is to really clean up state government, to foster an attitude and atmosphere of distrust, so that corruption might be more quickly noticed, publicized and rooted out.
But I think a sizeable percentage of Illinoisians are comfortable “trusting” big government and accepting the corruption that comes with it.
Comment by Rick Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:07 am
VM,
Point well taken,but….
our crooks are better than your crooks
just look at Navy pier and millenium park!
Comment by Bill Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:09 am
Vanilla Man articulates the Medill Swill. Today’s Trib’s feed greed on Gov. Ryan’s liver by the Hi-Lo twins Kass appealing to guys like me who like roller derby and Zorn for NPR granola eaters was even too much for me, a guy who dunks Slim Jims in Bosco.
What would Old Joe Medill do?
Would Joe Medill take a lead pipe to George Ryan?
Only if his arms and were tied, Yes he would.
Comment by Pat Hickey Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:15 am
I think there are some dandy ideas in the original post. While I’m a big union booster, I think it would be fair to ban union contributions if corporate ones were also banned. It would not prevent people who work for the corporation or people who belong to the union from making individual contributions as citizens, or for their respective leaders ‘advising’ who to support. But it would return the power to the individual voter instead of aggregators with their own agendas.
Paul Simon used to complain a lot about how much time fundraising or fundraising-related activity takes away from a senator’s daily work. While it is proper to keep our politicians responsive to their public thru the power of the ballot, campaign practices and financing have distorted things into a parody of democracy.
To me the number-one problem is that modern campaigning, with it’s reliance on expensive TV advertising, created this need, this over-the-top requirement for fundraising. Wherever you need huge volumes of cash flow, you create the potential for shenannigans. Our system of government was never supposed to be turned over to market forces. Not for just the guy with the most cash. Yet ask any office holder and they’ll tell you they are compelled to do what everyone else is doing, if they are to have a hope of competing. This system self-perpetuates and can only be broken from outside of itself.
By making it the TV station’s civic duty to run campaign spots, instead of using it for a profit center, you could short-circuit this whole issue. It would be important to not restrict free speech, so I would look for ways to make it possible for any legit candidate to get their spots on, and I’d give all the candidates an equal number of free airtime spots. When you can’t get an advantage thru volume/frequency of ads, the ads themselves have to earn votes by communicating better, becoming more substantive. Well, you could waste your allotment with negative campaign spots if you wanted to, but without the unlimited airplay to reinfoce their distortions, they lose most of their power, and they would each get thorough scrutiny in the media after they aired, so the lies could be examined.
Comment by Gregor Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:19 am
Pat Collins,
You can’t ban political TV and radio ads. The Constitution protects speech, one’s right to express his or her views without the threat of government intervention. Are you not aware of the most basic principles our political system is founed upon?
Comment by Veritas Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:20 am
Gregor,
Not bad! But let’s go further - In order to keep a truly free press and a truly independent political commonwealth, lets’ ban ANY Political endorsements by Newspapers and their affiliate companies.
Oh, my God, that would have a ‘chilling effect’ upon the dissemination of Balderdash in this state.
Comment by Pat Hickey Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:26 am
Pat,
Does anyone care who the newspapers endorse? The Trib has endorsed GOPers since before Ike, but the people of Cook County don’t seem ever to have listened.
The only endorsements I use are the Bar Associations, because I otherwise would know no one in the judges section. And even there, I look at all 12 associations to get a composite view.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:58 am
Well, I have a tiny forehead and I need the good folks at the Tribune to tell me what time it is; what’s corruption this week; poor people do nothave much money; Progressive candidates are better than effective political professionals; how tall Mike Quigley is; how wet Lake Michigan is; and that Criminals are only jailed because of racism and after a solid thumping - How’s Webb going to spin that one back at Doc Protess?
If the endorsements do not matter, then what would be the harm in rendering them illegal, immoral, and immaterial?
Comment by Pat Hickey Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 11:10 am
I don’t think contributions should be banned or even limited, but they ought to be disclosed on the web, where anyone can look at them. That way it gives additional information to the voter.
Likewise, all disbursements of state money, whether for snowplowing or road construction or running a prison, should be listed on a web site. So if the Liebkawitz company is contracted to remove snow for $300,000 that would be published.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 11:21 am
cermak_rd
the only bar association I trust are the guys at my tavern.
But seriously, the two most important problems are time and money. The amount of campaign time means that a ton of money must be spent electioneering. That means that nobody can run without being corrupted.
I see that some states want to fiddle with the primary dates to be first. Lets restrict campaign periods. Move the primary date to six weeks before the general. Ban electioneering more than one month before the primary date.
Ny limiing the amount of money a prospective candidate must spend, you will widen the field and lessen the opportunity for boodle corruption.
Next, eliminate double dipping in the public sector.
Finally, lower the prition requiremnts for getting on the ballot.
Comment by Truthful James Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 11:28 am
We have the perfect example of how to “FIX” the problem. It was a Senator who HAD to self fund because he would not be a team player who brought this on. We have to elect people who are not part of the Network of either party. We had a chance in the last GOP Primary I hope we have another chance in the future.
We have to lift the limits on donations and have them listed THE SAME DAY on the Internet. That way people who are not rich or part of the party structure can run without having to make deals with the “Combine”
THANK YOU SENATOR FITZGERALD!!! Now on to the 5th floor!!!!!!
Comment by RAI Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 11:38 am
Absolutely! Let’s have this Republic of ours COMPLETELY bought and paid for by spolied MULTI millionaire bankers!
END political BOSSISM ELECT THE MAN AND ONLY THE MAN WHO CAN PAY FOR THE OFFICE! Yeah, a real triumph for the little guy; a triumph of WILL!
Comment by Pat Hickey Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 12:06 pm
Gregor, who are dead on with your comments. If the labor unions and corporations couldn’t contribute this would go a long way in cleaning up this mess. Time limits for campaigns and dollar amount to spend are other possible ideas. Currently it is like the arms race with the USSR, who will break whom first.
Comment by bluedog demo Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 12:11 pm
Pat H.
Don’t be bashful, Pat, say what you really, really think.
Peter F. was the only person able to break through the combine on the Rpublican side. He had to pay to play, was beholden to nobodand won in a blue state.
He had to go out and convince voters that he was not/more than a millionaire banker
He had to win both primary and general, I daresay that he attracted some Democrat voters.
I guess you would prefer multimillion dollar lawyers — like Dan Walker. Or this guy Jon Corzine in New Jersey.
Their money did not buy elections, it bought them a hearing.
Comment by Truthful James Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 12:20 pm
Hickey’s on a roll today. Better than usual. Will anyone in the mainstream media ever call out Jack Kass on his profound silence in regard to the many transgressions of his old fishin’ buddy, Ed Vrdolyak? You would be hard pressed to find any Medillian pointing that out. Even a hard-working, up-by-the-bootstraps scibbler like our host, Rich Miller, seems to have missed it.
Comment by Hickey Wannabe Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 12:20 pm
OK, let’s tone it down a bit, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 12:29 pm
To take her ideas one by one:
> Their answers should include restrictions on how much can be contributed to candidates and a ban on direct contributions by corporations and labor unions.
I don’t have a problem with big caps, like say if someone wants to drop $100,000 on a candidate or a party. But the devil’s in the details. Just what are the monetary limits? Put them too low, and ONLY rich folks are going to be able to have enough cash to run ads. Also, what’s with singling out corporations and labor unions? I know why she does it, it’s in the Supreme Court law, but at a theoretical level, I see no reason to unduly single out only labor unions and corporations as the source of corruption in our politics.
> Decisions about state employment and contracts should be based on merit and not decided by contributions and politics.
Again, an outcome more than a policy. Is she proposing to extend the Shakman concepts to ALL state hiring? Will future governors not be allowed to select chiefs of staffs based on partisan considerations? Devil’s in the details.
> We need reasonable restrictions on how campaigns are financed and a strong regulatory system that will enforce those laws. And we need more disclosure about lobbying practices, as well as increased sunshine on all levels of government.
As far as better disclosure laws are concerned … GO CINDY GO. People who say there have been no improvements on politics since the 1970s reforms leave out the salient benefits that stricter disclosure reforms have provided. That said, and I’m sure he has more specifics for all this, I’d be curious just what she has in mind.
So … I wouldn’t call many of these actual policy reforms. They are more in the way of outcomes. They’re admirable outcomes, mostly, but in campaign reform, it’s always how do you actually get from point A to point B.
I wish we could get more creative in terms of how we think about campaigning. How about the idea of “sliding contributions” - to let good people gather enough cash to be competitive and thus collect more contributions, why not pass a law saying that there are contribution caps but people can START with bigger self-funders - say your first set of 50 donors can give bigger gifts, $20,000 each say - and you have to disclose all those, and THEN you have to start getting smaller contributions. That might allow for good people without great means to reach the million mark get themselves in the game, and then above a million they have to start getting a lot of smaller contributions. That might balance out some of the pluses and minuses of unlimited donation versus total command-and-control of election finance.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 12:30 pm
I think there are 2 major problems. The first is most good people don’t want to run for public office because they don’t want to ask for money. Public officials are basically beggars. Second, we have no reasonable campaign finance rules. If we legislated against raising money from people with conflicts of interest, it would change things significantly.
Sadly, I don’t see the political will to change this situation, but happily I don’t see the US Attorney going anywhere either.
Ashur Odishoo
Candidate
State Representative 11th District
Comment by Ashur Odishoo Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 1:05 pm
Since this is a representative democracy. Why not eliminate the ‘elected’ officials and have our representatives determined by lottery. Just like jury duty.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 2:45 pm
Two words: TERM LIMITS. Good people get elected and then succumb to the vices of power, or get worn down and plead “that’s the way it’s always been done in Illinois.” A contstantly rotating crop of decent people could make changes without worrying about their next election, which for reps is always less than 2 years away.
Comment by Troy News Guy Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 2:47 pm
As long as the chicago machine backs guys like Ryan and Blago; great candidates like Poshard and Vallas don’t have a chance.
Term limits will stop reformers andmake the crooks steal faster.
Move the state elections back to the presidential years so more folks will vote.
Give the Auditor General more powers.
Comment by chicago buddies Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 3:13 pm
Term limits will make the crooks steal faster? Oh gosh, I love that (in a sarcastic way). Libertarian satirist P.J. O’Rourke has joked that “Term limits aren’t enough. We need jail.”
Maybe in addition to term limits, the jail time ought to be made considerably longer. Right former Governor Ryan, who only got about 6 years? Jail time ought to be at least three times the amount of time of 1 corrupt term spent in office. At the very least! As in, as a baseline starting point.
Comment by Angie Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 3:46 pm
It all becomes much clearer now. The whole death row pardoningwas no more and no less than an attempt to make him look like a humanitarian in case the investigation started to burn his toes.
Dan Webb announces an appeal. More pro bono work from W&S. I almost wish him success so that we can retry Ryan and get a more appropriate sentence for this political equivalent of a Mafia capo — except that a convicted capo would get a heavier sentence than one of his soldiers.
Whcih would put Thompson, Webb and Winstron and Strawn in the neat position of having to provide another several million of pro bono at the new trial.
Comment by Truthful James Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 3:58 pm
You don’t know the half of it! LOL
Comment by Pat Hickey Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 4:24 pm
“Medill worked tirelessly for the election of Abraham Lincoln as president and grimly set himself and his newspaper to support the savage war that followed Lincoln’s election. Ray left the paper in 1863 and in 1874, Medill purchased a controlling interest. Two of Medill’s brothers were killed in the Civil War and in the decades following, Medill’s Tribune sided with the working man in battles against such high-handed industrialists and monopolists as the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts.â€
So, I honored Pat! Call it swill if you want to, but swill it aint!
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 4:52 pm
Yep, I got an old lefty book that talks about what a sweet guy Joe Stalin was as well.
Here’s lind of a newer book that’s a good read-
“Death In the Haymarket brings these remarkable events to life, re-creating a tempestuous moment in American social history. James Green recounts the rise of the first great labor movement in the wake of the Civil War and brings to life the epic twenty-year battle for the eight-hour workday. He shows how the movement overcame numerous setbacks to orchestrate a series of strikes that swept the country in 1886, positioning the unions for a hard-won victory on the eve of the Haymarket tragedy.
As he captures the frustrations, tensions and heady victories, Green also gives us a rich portrait of Chicago, the Midwestern powerhouse of the Gilded Age. We see the great factories and their wealthy owners, including men such as George Pullman, and we get an intimate view of the communities of immigrant employees who worked for them. Throughout, we are reminded of the increasing power of newspapers as, led by the legendary Chicago Tribune editor Joseph Medill, they stirred up popular fears of the immigrants and radicals who led the unions.
Blending a gripping narrative, outsized characters and a panoramic portrait of a major social movement, Death In the Haymarket is an important addition to the history of American capitalism and a moving story about the class tensions at the heart of Gilded Age America. ”
Swill - pigs love it! That’s an homage to our Stockyard past - Old Joe croaked by the time of the big strikes 1904 & etc.
Comment by Pat Hickey Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 5:14 pm
This is quite a thread here, gents. I feel pretty good myself that I finally understood every single word that Reddbyrd and agreed with it.
To the question: I just think the Canary chirps too loudly. Let’s enforce all the myriad of ethics, procurement, disclosure, lobbying, FOIA and other laws already on the books before we go out and further muck up the already herky-jerky motion of government In Illinois in memory of Uncle George.
Comment by NumbersGuy Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 5:33 pm
Cassandra has sunk to a new low, even for her. I happen to know both Marty Cohen and Cindi Canary. They are honorable people as are most consumer advocates. What a low, stupid blow. She should try doing some constructive work toward the world she envisions and join those of us who are working for, not just whining about better government in Illinois.
Comment by Criminal Enterprise Called Illinois Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 6:20 pm
Here is my suggestion of what to do: NOTHING.
Why? Years and years of reforms and regulations have done nothing but encourage loopholes, bundling, and cheating. I am being honest when I say that we need to lower our expectations and accept the fact that shadiness and corruption is inevitable and it is part of our culture.
Do I sound cynical? Ask yourself, how many candidates run every 4 years on the promise of “cleaning up state government”, blah-blah. It rings hollow. It is disingenuous or incredibly naive. And as voters WE are naive for expecting “honest government”.
I have also learned (the hard way) over the years that real reformers cannot get elected and stay elected and also that well-intentioned citizens with REFORM ideas cannot fight the machine. That’s just a political fact of life in Illinois.
Comment by Fearless Freep Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 6:24 pm
I have to agree with “Justice” we do not need more laws-the laws are already there! What “We the People” need to do is to become more pro-active! Has anyone read the Declaration of Independence? It is our responsiblity to hold policitians accountable and we aren’t doing that. “That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it’s foundation on such principles and organizing it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
People it isn’t the politicians that aren’t doing their job-it is We the People that aren’t doing our part!
Comment by exasperted Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 6:32 pm
As long as government has the power to make people rich or break honest businesses with meddling regulations, it will be tainted by corruption. As three decades of campaign finance “reform” has proven, no amount of new rules or laws will change that fact. Want less corruption in government? Make it less powerful.
Comment by Cook citizen Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:02 pm
Workable solutions or not, at least Cindi Canary is unafraid to put her two cents in on issues… unlike Reddbyrd’s sugar daddy.
Comment by Freddbyrd Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 9:47 pm
referencing a great book about politics “It is customary for those who wish to gain the favour a prince to endeavour to do so by offering him gifts of those things which they hold most precious,” He wrote his volume as a gift. In other words, he gave at the office. Those who are trying to take politics out of the hiring process completely are in effect seeking to undo history. I think that there are several improvements necessary to our hiring processes but my message is that by taking away an administration’s power to choose their advisors–and not necessarily just top advisors–they are undermining that elected official’s ability to achieve their goals. Because the people that work for them by first campaigning and then going in to do the day-to-day administration are those dedicated to better government. “He should encourage his citizens to follow their callings quietly, but he should offer rewards to whoever does these things, and to whoever seeks in any way to improve his city or state.” That’s not a partisan statement, it’s a statement about how an official, elected by the populace can have representation in the workforce. I do believe that there are many dedicated public servants who have years of knowledge who should be secure in their jobs. However, a change of the guard once in awhile means that there is a chance of new ideas in government and it prevents complacency.
Comment by roman girl Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:04 pm
I also think Reddbyrd has it right. There will always be some favoritism to friends, however slight, when governmental contracts and jobs are to be doled out. As long as the goods are delivered “as advertised” and there is no corruption or illegal discrimination going on (as in wholesale skirting of Rutan, or pay to play), I think most people can live with that.
However, to uncover those things that are “wrong” usually requires 2 things:
1. Someone in a position to see the wrongdoing, with the ability to document it (not just hearsay from a co-worker of a co-worker).
2. Same person actually going to the authorities (assuming the *ahem* authorities are not crooked, too) and being the “whistleblower”.
#1 is rare enough, the combination of #1 and #2 even rarer.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:37 pm
From Reddbyrd’s post:
fixing test scores —-wrong BUT STILL BEING DONE, DESPITE THE CURRENT VET. PREFERENCE PROBLEMS.
asking for a contribution to get a job — wrong BEING LOOKED INTO BY THE FEDS RIGHT NOW.
offering a donation or payment to get work — wrong - THAT’S HOW LOBBYING WORKS.
using govt resources for campaign wrong — GOING ON IN STATE PRINTSHOPS EVEN AS WE SPEAK TO THE TUNE OF 100′S OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR THE WORK and THE POSTAGE. WATCH YOUR MAILBOXES FOR THE LATEST ONSLAUGHT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ALLKIDS.
ALL ARE CRIMES ALREADY - Amen to that, but does anybody really care? That’s the sad part of it all. People forget that the expense for all this comes right out of their pockets but they don’t seem to care.
Comment by Disgustedf Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:37 pm
To roman girl - Thursday, Sep 7, 06 That sure sounds innocuous enough and makes me warm and fuzzy all over. Just knowing that campaigners can be rewarded, not by the simple feeling of accomplishment of their action to improve government, but by doing so for personal gain in the winning administration. This reward in almost all cases over the bodies of those faithful, dedicated, hard working career employees. You make it sound as if that is the route to improve our lot in life. Are you kidding. It is the fact that people with no hard work and dedication of working their way up through the ranks, and no long term experience should be given jobs over others who have sacrificed, that makes any administration condoning such an embarrassment to a democracy. It is the person that steps over others because of a short sprint to a political goal and feels they should be set on a silver platter that corrupts the system. There are positions in the upper ranks, double exempt positions, into which the governor can place his people, his advisors if you will. But this governor has abused that privilege and made a mockery of it. But hey, you feel a campaigner has a right to a job…..perhaps you should talk to the US Attorney. You sure don’t won’t to knock on my door! I don’t like hacks and cronies and you sound suspiciously like both!!
Comment by Justice Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 10:53 pm
As long as people are satisfied to suckle at the teat of government they will not be free. The whole welfare system was set up to encourage that dependency — to encourage people to stay in place rather than to move to where there is work.
Get your hackles down. I did not say that the welfare system did no good, merely that the politicians gamed and structured it to their benefit.
Inadvertently perhaps, but the systems assisted in the breakdown of the traditional family — the most effective unit of governance and the only one able to provide its members with a moral code, the only one able to stimulate the effort needed to achieve interclass mobility.
Comment by Truthful James Friday, Sep 8, 06 @ 7:24 am
justice–I wasn’t going for warm or fuzzy. You misinterpreted and then didn’t pay attention to the fact that I said that there are public servants-let’s debate that with “Disgusted”-who have knowledge earned through years of service who shouldn’t be ousted. But by calling me a hack -definition–someone who deals or copes with or crony–from the Greek “khronios” or long lasting sure you’re right. But not in the way you define it. I’ve been in state government through several administrations. And I made some decisions to work for administrations that I believe in. I worked in MSI issues– nobody really even knows what it did to the little people. Those eligible for Medicaid had to pay their own bills because that company Id’d them with insurance–car insurance,life–didn’t matter–but they got stuck with their bills because the billing cycle is only a year, and it got stalled long enough that they were stuck. How’s that for justice buddy? And with your claim that you should campaign just for the simple feeling of accomplishment of your action to improve government but by not getting personal gain through employment–how do you get past the fact that people who are working in government in the first place are probably those most interested in the political process? That’s where they want to work, in the issues! So get off your Trojan High Horse!
Comment by roman girl Friday, Sep 8, 06 @ 11:22 pm