Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “Nazi” abortion story to kick back up
Next Post: Rauner sets Monday noon deadline, says he’ll call special session if SB 1 not sent to his desk
Posted in:
* Oopsie…
A Democratic legislator from the Northwest Side was paid $170,000 for work as a consultant to fellow Democrats during two years when he failed to list that work as a source of income on his required state ethics filings, records examined by the Chicago Sun-Times show.
State Rep. Robert Martwick, D-Chicago, who is an attorney, says the economic-interest statements that legislators have to file with the secretary of state’s office every year are so “poorly written” that he didn’t understand what he needed to include.
“When I get to the disclosures, I try to be as open as I can be,” Martwick says. “I’m a lawyer, but, looking at those questions, I don’t know what they’re asking.”
The ethics forms ask legislators to “list the name and instrument of ownership in any entity doing business in the state of Illinois in which [their] ownership interest” is worth more than $5,000 or from which they made more than $1,200 during the past year.
Pretty simple language.
* Most of the piece is pretty entertaining, but this is a really unnecessary pile-on…
The younger Martwick is the legislator who complained last August on Facebook that the state budget standoff delayed his paycheck. He blasted Gov. Bruce Rauner and then-state Comptroller Leslie Munger for withholding legislators’ checks, saying that amounted to “extortion and conspiracy.”
* Um, no. That’s a clear distortion. Martwick’s Facebook post was actually about a story on Rep. Jaime Andrade driving an Uber to make ends meet while he wasn’t being paid…
Offering a financial incentive to an elected official to secure their vote on a subject is corruption. If you do that, you will go to jail. Withholding pay in order to force a vote is no different. Our impasse in Springfield has nothing to do with being able to do that math. Instead it is about one side wanting to impose profound change to our system and is trying to force the other side to do it against the wishes of the people they represent. Politicians in Illinois are not very popular. I often hear “you should work for free.”
Of course if we did that, then the only people who could serve would be people like Rauner, Madigan, Cullerton, and me. Shouldn’t everyone have the opportunity to serve? Do you really just want a bunch of wealthy businessmen and lawyers making the laws that affect your life? Wouldn’t you rather have some representatives who know what it means to struggle from day to day so that when they vote on laws, they can relate to the issues you deal with?
Jaime M Andrade Jr.. is an extremely effective, smart and hard working representative. He has an understanding of the legislative process that is unparalleled. By denying him pay, Leslie Geissler Munger and Bruce Rauner are trying, and succeeding, at putting him in a very difficult financial decision. That is extortion and corruption. Plain and simple. Kudos to Jaime for being willing to do whatever it takes to stay true to the people he represents.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 10:08 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “Nazi” abortion story to kick back up
Next Post: Rauner sets Monday noon deadline, says he’ll call special session if SB 1 not sent to his desk
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Did he do anything wrong or is it just failure to disclose in a timely manner?
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 10:14 am
Frank Mautino will be investigating this?
Comment by Downstate Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 10:17 am
I have filled those forms out. I find them confusing as well. I usually disclose items I buy at the store if I consume them on state property.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 10:17 am
The questions on the forms are poorly written. It’s a common complaint from elected folks. Our city attorney had to call for clarification on several questions.
It’s highly doubtful that Martwick would try to hide his income.
Comment by jade me not Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 10:20 am
Also, Martwick acknowledges not having a Chicago city business license. But he says he plans to go to City Hall and apply for one soon.”
Funniest part of the article IMO.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 10:21 am
ah, the difficulties of becoming a reformer when you come from a line of machine insiders.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 10:27 am
Martwicks’s explanation ain’t exactly great advertising for the old law practice.
Here’s a free initial consultation: If you’re confused, make a couple phone calls to clarify.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 10:28 am
To clarify for some people who may be confused like I was, the actual non-disclosure mistake was that he didn’t report that he owned First Tuesday, Inc. through which he did the $170,000 in consulting work. Doing $170,000 in consulting work on its own would not have been reportable in that section of the form.
I also find parts of the forms confusing, but that section is pretty straight-forward unless you have indirect investments in Illinois companies.
Comment by Pelonski Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 10:33 am
from the form..
“I declare that this statement of economic interests (including any accompanying schedules and statements) has been examined by me and to the best of my knowledge and belief is a true, correct and complete statement of my economic
interests as required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act. I understand that the penalty for willfully filing a false or
incomplete statement shall be a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment in a penal institution other than the penitentiary not to exceed one year, or both fine and imprisonment.”
Comment by Texas Red Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 11:07 am
==Martwicks’s explanation ain’t exactly great advertising for the old law practice.==
Yep. “Confused Consulting Services. How may I direct your call?”
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 11:12 am
I also filled out various disclosure forms in the past. It did get confusing on what had to be reported (rental property, for example) and consulting for hire (maybe) and book royalties (probably not)
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 11:31 am
I have filled out these disclosure forms in the past. Definitely confusing. Just take your best shot and move on.
Comment by OldIllini Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 11:48 am
someone else must have mis spelled “strikes” on my previous post, probably Madigan
Comment by Publius Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 1:50 pm
Oops to the wrong post this time damn who’s doing this I couldn’t make a mistake
Comment by Publius Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 1:54 pm
aah You’re not stupid — you know what they are trying to get at.
Put down everything you can think of that might be remotely in question as to appearance of impropriety, conflict of interest, ethics, and let someone else decide if you’ve been too transparent.
Comment by walker Friday, Jul 21, 17 @ 3:44 pm