Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and some other things
Next Post: MJM roundup
Posted in:
Chicago City Clerk Anna Valencia, who is running as a Democrat for Illinois Secretary of State, has amended her statements of financial interests after questions raised by NBC 5.
Valencia’s husband Reyahd Kazmi is a lobbyist, and as required, Valencia must list any companies that do business with the city that her spouse/or partner received compensation for of more than $5,000 a year.
Valencia initially amended her 2021 forms on March 15 after NBC 5 first revealed Valencia did not list Monterrey Security, a company with clout-heavy city contracts. Besides Monterrey Security, Valencia also amended her 2021 form to include two other businesses that were not listed initially: Chicago Commons and Black Dog Corporation.
On Friday, the Chicago Board of Ethics has posted on its website that Valencia has amended her 2020 ethics statements.
Valencia’s campaign spokesman, insisting the amendment was done the same day on March 15, forwarded to NBC 5 a form her campaign says was emailed to the Board of Ethics, but the form had no one’s name on it and was not dated or signed. The word “amendment” was misspelled. […]
If Valencia should become the Secretary of State she would be in charge of the registration of lobbyists.
Oh for crying out loud.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 8:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and some other things
Next Post: MJM roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
There’s a limit to how much people will tolerate hearing about “making history” if they think you’re not up to the job, one they just want done by a technocrat.
Comment by Torco Sign Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 8:54 am
These are not accidental errors am I sorry to say. She has run for (and currently holds) public office. She is experienced with what is needed to file with the election authority. This should not be a surprise to her.
She is seeking her SoS job who would have oversight over lobsters and she is negligent with this important information?
Be transparent and not sloppy. If your spouse is lobbying for x, y,z–report it. Don’t worry about how your candidacy is going to be perceived. This is added income. If you’re embarrassed about it, resign from doing that role.
Comment by Pizza Man Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 8:55 am
Blocking, tackling, fundamentals.
(Sigh)
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 8:55 am
@Torco Sign, if Richard Irvin wins he’d be “making history” too
Comment by Jose Abreu's Next Homer Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 8:59 am
@Jose Abreu’s Next Homer “Making history” is her primary (no pun intended) campaign message. Irvin is attacking Pritzker, not constantly talking about making history, which hits his party’s primary voters differently anyway.
Comment by Torco Sign Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 9:03 am
===one they just want done by a technocrat.===
This sounds like you’re implying that Secretary White is a technocrat.
===These are not accidental errors am I sorry to say===
This is an awfully high bar to reach.
===Be transparent and not sloppy. If your spouse is lobbying for x, y,z–report it.===
It does not behoove anyone to throw their spouse under the bus on the campaign trail but I am willing to presume that it is entirely possible for her to simply be unaware of the complete details of her husband’s contracts and payments and entirely possible for him to not accurately report them to her and without a 3rd party combing through records to make certain the report is accurate these things can occur.
I find it very difficult to presume any sort of intent or malicious intent when there doesn’t actually seem to be any real benefit to withholding any of the information and failing to disclose it has more negative impacts than disclosing it would.
Fudging this paperwork isn’t nearly as bad as what was happening with the paperwork at Broadway Bank.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 9:09 am
===throw their spouse under the bus===
Simply filling out forms correctly, accurately, and timely is a fundamental.
No one is a victim to not doing the necessary things.
So much daylight is burning, every day Alexi can pass without dealing with his own issues or the endorsements and cash Valencia needs to tout, those are good days for Alexi.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 9:23 am
What else can be revealed by peeling back more of this stinky onion.
If she can’t do that one ethics statement correctly, how can she oversee all state Lobbyist activities. A big No Thank You.
Comment by Husband Unethical and tip of the iceberg Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 9:39 am
=== If she can’t do that one ethics statement correctly, how can she oversee all state Lobbyist activities.===
The other choice on the Dem side is an ethically challenged banker who has been missing for a decade while rainmaking in big banks, and was already rejected by Illinois when his history was put up against another candidate.
If you’re concerned about peeled onions, don’t put your nose at Alexi.
It was a form. It was messed up, it’s a fundamental, it’s shows the Valencia Crew really-really lacks, so much so they misspelled “amendment”…
Take a breath on the ethics thingy when looking at choices on that side of the primary.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 9:44 am
The Anna Valencia campaign continues to disappoint and the best thing she may have going for her is that she’s not Alexi. Regardless of how “historic” a campaign may be, it can’t overshadow the need to execute on campaign basics. Flawed candidates are flawed candidates regardless of who they are.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 9:53 am
Part of the issue may be Mr. Kazmi can’t admit to the world that he’s a lobbyist. Take a look at his professor profile on the UIC website. The lengths lobbyists will go to obfuscate that they’re lobbyists is incredible.
https://ec.uic.edu/cnm/instructors/cnm-reyahd-kazmi/
Comment by Mark Johnson Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 9:56 am
It has to be Alexi, now.
Otherwise, (to paraphrase Oswego)
“The other choice on the Dem side is an ethically challenged [city clerk] who has been miss[pell]ing for a decade while [aiding her hubby’s] rainmaking”
Comment by Pungent Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 11:08 am
=== It has to be Alexi, now.
“The other choice on the Dem side is an ethically challenged [city clerk] who has been miss[pell]ing for a decade while [aiding her hubby’s] rainmaking”===
Alexi is a proven loser statewide when voters are reminded of his real ethical issues, so Republicans would love to have Alexi be the nominee, won’t take much to remind folks how they rejected the absent Alexi last time.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 11:11 am
This might be the seat independent voters use to vote R. I think the rest of the ticket has done a fine job, with exception of AG data breach, but that barely got any coverage, most likely due to covid.
Rs get SOS they now have a bench for next gov race and quite a few jobs. This seems like best bet.
Comment by Almost the Weekend Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 12:08 pm
Alexi’s past is extremely questionable to put it lightly, but Valencia being appointed by Rahm is bad news, don’t want an enabler for the privatization that Chicago has seen statewide, already too many lobbyists having significant sway they gotta be properly regulated.
Comment by Lake Villa Township Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 12:57 pm
=It has to be Alexi, now.=
No. Each of these candidates has to stand on their merits or lack thereof. Anna’s missteps don’t make Alexi’s shortcomings and history any more tolerable. The reverse holds true as well.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 1:48 pm
==== This might be the seat independent voters use to vote R. ====
I am a dem through and through. But if Alexi wins the primary there is a chance I move over to the R column in this race. Especially if Brady is their nominee.
Of course the last time I voted for a statewide GOP candidate he won but got indicted. That was Bill Scott as AG
Comment by Been There Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 2:27 pm
–This might be the seat independent voters use to vote R–
This is a commonplace. But every race has TWO candidates. As a ticket-splitting D, I must say: Milhiser is neither an attractive candidate nor naturally suited to SoS.
So, like Been There, I could be thrown back to a straight ticket, depending on the GOP quality of statewide candidates.
On the other hand, Tom Demmer has been pretty convincing out the gate. If I vote for a single R in the Fall, he’s got the inner track.
Comment by Pungent Monday, Mar 28, 22 @ 3:12 pm
Yet another reason not to vote for Valencia.
Comment by Lionel Tuesday, Mar 29, 22 @ 1:35 pm