Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Former Gov. Pat Quinn had his own ethical issues with the Neighborhood Recovery Initiative and hiring at IDOT and crafting a new job for Madigan crony Patrick Ward and being accused by Dick Durbin of having been a ghost payroller under Dan Walker. But those days are long-forgotten and he held a press conference today to demand that Gov. JB Pritzker call an immediate special session on ethics. His proposals…

(1) Amending Article XIV, Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution to allow voters to enact stricter ethics laws directly by initiative petition and binding referendum;

(2) Enacting a mandatory conflict of interest law to prevent legislators from voting or taking official action on matters involving personal, family, or financial interests;

(3) Prohibiting taxpayer-paid pensions for legislators and former legislators convicted of public integrity felonies;

(4) Strengthening the office and powers of the Legislative Inspector General including subpoena powers to help perform thorough investigations and root out misconduct;

(5) Prohibiting legislators from doubledipping by being on two public payrolls while in office;

(6) Restrictions on the campaign contributions and charitable donations of regulated utilities and monopolies;

(7) Stronger revolving door prohibitions on legislators leaving the General Assembly and joining the payroll of an entity with a lobbying interest; and

(8) Robust income tax disclosure requirements for statewide constitutional offices and legislative leaders.

We did this with the House GOP proposals, so let’s try it again.

* The Question: Which, if any, of these ideas do you support the most and which, if any, do you oppose? Make sure to explain your answers, please. Thanks.

…Adding… From Senate President Don Harmon’s spokesperson John Patterson…

We appreciate Mr. Quinn’s input and look forward to reviewing his letter.
At the end of the day, the people in the ComEd Four trial were convicted because what they did was already, and always has been, illegal.

Senate President Harmon will continue to be a champion of ethics. The point he has been trying to drive home is that what we need in public service are good people focused on the state’s welfare rather than their own self-interests.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 12:19 pm

Comments

1, no. 2, beyond the “not specifically benefitting” exception. 4, ish - elected officials are innocent until investigated. The rest, yes.

Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 12:27 pm
Support 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. These all make sense.
#8 should be all elected officials not just statewide and leaders. If the idea is to make finances of our elected officials more open so that bribes and kickbacks are less likely, then why does it matter if it is the governor or a small town mayor.

I don’t like citizen petitions. So no on #1. They do not end up as planned.

For #5, I think it really depends on the nature of the positions. Ignoring how “part-time” the elected position is, I do not have a problem if some small village trustee is also elected as their State rep. The issue is can they truly do both jobs. In that context, I think it is up to the voters in their district to decide if the person has enough time for both jobs.

Comment by Unionman Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 12:32 pm
#6 might not be constitutional. The rest except #1 seem like good ideas. I’m skeptical of citizen petitions.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 12:38 pm
2-5 all make a lot of sense for sure. 1 and then 6-8 have potential, but the details of how they are written will matter so much as to whether it is actually good. Citizen ballot measures especially, there is a lot of potential there but also we have seen so many negative outcomes in other states when the system is not set up well.

Comment by CornAl DoGooder Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 12:41 pm
Without getting into detail on all of them I would most support 7 and 8. It’s ridiculous that executive branch officials have to sit out a year and legislators don’t have to sit one day.

I would be most opposed to 1 and 6. 1 is Quinn’s old lazy schtick about government by referendum, and we’re not California. I don’t want that can of worms opened. 6 is likely unconstitutional.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 12:42 pm
Quinn’s past can’t be forgotten. He was also Dan Walker’s patronage chief. (In addition, he can never be forgiven for the Cutback Amendment.)

1 is a bad idea, Opening up the constitution to more initiatives and petition drives would lead to too many off-the wall — and expensive — petition campaigns.

The rest are fine ideas that would help clean up Illinois government.

It’s really time, though, for Gov. Quinn to quietly enjoy his retirement, and for others to push ideas for reform.

Comment by Keyrock Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 12:42 pm
I’m sure instead the ILGA will put even more strict revolving door requirements on the lowest paid and least mobile state employees instead, and do nothing to address the politicians. Just like the last time.

Comment by Homebody Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 12:51 pm
Most of these seem fine with varying degrees of priority and legal feasibility, except I don’t like #1. I’ve yet to see a state really do citizen referendum well and it really hampers the governing process.

Comment by DuPage Dad Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 12:51 pm
The nuance of 2-8 have merit to discussion and even to getting legislation to the nuances to pass, 60/30, signature, sure, run ‘em, see how they go. No problem with exploring that.

#1 is a non-starter for me. We have a legislature, governing “by game show” with countless referendum is not how I’d like to see Illinois devolve.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 12:56 pm
Not on the list but needed…FOIA should apply to all branches of state government and all elected and unelected state officials. They should all have the joy of endless FOIA requests.

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:00 pm
People, explain your answer or it’ll be deleted, as one just was.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:03 pm
All of them, especially number 1. More democracy and citizen participation is a good thing, despite ridicule from elitist politicos.

Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:04 pm
Wow, I had forgotten about charges of Quinn being an alleged “ghost payroller.” In addition to a blast from the past reference in that Trib link to the late Gov. Dan Walker, there was also a mention of “State Rep. Rod Blagojevich” — a pair of governors who eventually served prison time. As far as Quinn’s latest proposals? A no to 1 and 6, the rest seem like reasonable suggestions. As an earlier respondent said, we don’t need to be like California with endless referendums. Let the General Assembly legislate.

Comment by jackmac Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:13 pm
support 3 - Losing a pension would be a huge check on unethical behavior on the part of past legislators who are now lobbyists or consultants - - moving the standard from only official duties to public integrity felonies would be wise.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:19 pm
I support number 7 enthusiastically. Even though we supposedly have revolving door laws in place ( state employees get a refresher on this every year with ethics training). I see and hear of upper management time and again working for special interests right after their state employment.

Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:20 pm
I support all of the above. Pat Quinn is the wrong messenger which has the added effect of making people dismiss his suggestions. But a lot of these ideas have been around and they all make sense. I know he is doing #1 because he wants a new job and sees himself as the perfect protagonist in that drama, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

The only idea here that I’m lukewarm about is #5. I’ve seen some instances where double dipping is fine, especially if they’re both part time jobs. Pensions are a different story but he doesn’t cover that here.

Comment by New Day Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:20 pm
1) Oh no. Why give Uihlein and co. another tool to harass their political opponents.
2) Sounds good in theory, but what does it mean? If you’re an Illinois citizen, you invariably have interests that are affected by the state legislature.
3) Probably unconstitutional unless you’re creating a tier for new hires.
4) Sure, why not.
5) Why? We already have rules concerning compatibility of offices. If the offices are compatible, what’s the objection?
6) Assuming under current federal law, one could restrict political contributions from these corporate entities (probably not), why limit the restrictions to these entities?
7) Won’t have much impact, but sure, why not.
8) Whatever this means, why not.

Comment by duck duck goose Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:25 pm
===enact stricter ethics laws directly===

Nope. Governor Quinn is showing his age here.

We’re already having a very tough time keeping up with the current inmate population and already subjecting them to unconstitutional conditions and already under federal consent decrees for what a bad job we’re doing.

It’s sad that Pat Quinn has had so much time to reflect on these kinds of policy issues and comes out with some kind of 1990s proposal.

===Enacting a mandatory conflict of interest law===

Support. This seems like a good idea, but I think it gets rough when defining a conflict of interest. For example, a sibling that works in construction should not automatically mean that a legislator cannot be involved in any capital bill, but the legislators would again be able to sort out what they think is reasonable.

Plenty of members of congress have taken federal farm subsidies. Plenty. I don’t know if I’d call that unethical.

===Prohibiting taxpayer-paid pensions for […] felonies===

Support, doesn’t something like this already exist? Does it not impact legislators?

===Prohibiting legislators from doubledipping by being on two public payrolls while in office===

Very tepid support. I don’t know if this is really an issue but I am fine with discussing it. I don’t see anything wrong with a state legislator serving as a college professor or high school teacher or a municipal board and but would like to hear who this is specifically supposed to target if not those pesky teachers and professors.

=== Restrictions on the campaign contributions===

Absolutely support.

===Stronger revolving door prohibitions on legislators leaving the General Assembly and joining the payroll of an entity with a lobbying interest===

Support under certain definitions, for example I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a legislator leaving the GA to take a job as a university faculty member and they all have lobbying interests.

===Robust income tax disclosure requirements for statewide constitutional offices and legislative leaders===

Support.

===Former Gov. Pat Quinn had his own ethical issues with […] hiring at IDOT===

I am surprised no one has asked what Ryan Croke is doing for the Pritzker Administration considering what he was doing for the Quinn Administration.

Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:27 pm
I don’t disagree with any but I think some could use a little work or detail.

On number 2, I think defining what involvement is needs to be super narrow if they are required to recuse themselves or alternatively mandatory disclosure rather than recusal. And, give them a window of time to disclose their involvement because they’re not going to know on every single bill.

On number 8, I don’t think it’s a terrible idea but I see the tax disclosures being used as political campaign fodder far more often than being useful information for the public.

Comment by twowaystreet Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:30 pm
9) Legislators and their law firms cannot work on any property tax appeal issues

Comment by Chicagonk Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:33 pm
9) Legislators and their law firms cannot work on any property tax appeal issues
==============================

I understand why people propose things that only apply to law firms, but that would also be solved if you made membership in the GA a full-time job and prohibited outside employment

Comment by annoning Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:40 pm
#1 nope. I’m just not an initiative referendum and recall fan. #2 yes, obvi #3 Yes, if during job. for some a pension functions like social security.#4 obvi yes #5 double dip, nope. some people are valuable in other positions and people can have other empolyment #6 #7#8 yes, obvious

Comment by Amalia Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:44 pm
I’m good with all but #5, for which I don’t completely understand the reasoning. If this state wasn’t gerrymandered I’d have qualms about #1, but it is, so the more ungerrymandered votes, the better.

Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:54 pm
Enthusiastically Support #1. Our GA is still operating on
a Madigan Model supported by a Governor that is in office solely to serve his insider friends.
This amendment would give average taxpayers an opportunity to clean up the culture of corruption that we have suffered under for way too long.
Also support the other ideas which I suspect will go nowhere under Speaker Welsh and Pritzker.

Comment by Back to the Future Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 1:59 pm
Stronger revolving door provisions against legislators leaving to go and lobby. They should have a minimum 3 year revolving door provision, in order to allow for at least one election cycle of space between them and their relationships. I’d actually support longer, tbh.

Comment by ;) Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 2:02 pm
1) Hard “no”. Please don’t give Pat Quinn another opportunity to stalk people with a clipboard. In all seriousness, though, every time my sister in California moans about how many referenda they have to vote on, I’m glad we don’t have them.

2) Only if “matters involving” was narrowly defined.

3) Depends on the definition of “public integrity felonies”, and only if it applies to offenses committed while someone was in office.

4) Yes, makes sense.

5) What are the public payrolls? Are the jobs part-time or full-time? These things matter.

6) I’m not sure this would be constitutional.

7) & - generally support the concepts, but I’d need to see the details

Comment by JoanP Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 2:03 pm
Proposal 2:
Prohibit the “where’s mine” philosophy of many legislators and former legislators. Let’s not forget Silver Shovel, the governors and council members who have spent time in the Greybar Hotel.

Sooner or later these individuals will have their turn on the dance floor of the Dirksen Federal Building.

Comment by Rudy’s teeth Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 2:08 pm
The state of Illinois needs ethics in all parts of state government. Elected officers and state employees. The mandatory ethics training is a joke. This governor needs to step up to the plate and prove to the citizens in Illinois that he is a leader in ethics reform

The Office of Executive Inspector General is one of the biggest jokes of all. Either they do their jobs or let’s save the state money and do away with this masquerade

Comment by Imeh543 Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 2:10 pm
=== Prohibit the “where’s mine” philosophy of many legislators and former legislators. ===

Good luck with that one.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 2:13 pm
Joan p that was funny Quinn not stalking more people with clipboard he should retire from that. If you had a truly independent ig with real subpoena power with no limitations i could support that.

Comment by Regular democrat Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 2:17 pm
I support 4 strongly.

I do not support 1 at all. I don’t like ballot initiatives. We pay people to make decisions for the state and to know the legal and fiscal ramifications of those decisions.

Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 2:17 pm
- considering what he was doing for the Quinn Administration. -

What a pathetic broken record you are on this topic. Produce some proof of wrong doing or shut up already.

Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 2:29 pm
(1) A non-starter. Referendums are seldom a good idea. Illinois is not California.

(2) This would seem impossible to implement. If a legislator votes for something with a broad benefit to the public, is that unethical when the legislator and everyone else in the state benefits?

(3) This seems to be covered by existing law.

(4) None of the ComEd 4 would have been affected by this.

(5) Perhaps a good idea. Worth discussing at least.

(6) The U.S. Supreme Court would throw this out, given their take on donations as freedom of speech.

(7) Would make it difficult for legislators to find employment in Illinois, since virtually all employers have a lobbying interest.

(8) I don’t think any of the ComEd 4 would have been impacted by this change.

Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 2:50 pm
None, because none would have stopped ComEd. The reform that would have at least partially , disclosing consultants, is already on the books.

Also, never forgot PQ dispatching MM to get a gop vote to end the budget standoff in 10 by authorizing short term borrowing to get to a 3/5 vote. He’s no reformer.

Comment by Bingeworthy Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 3:02 pm
Thinking #8 would have shed some light on Madigan, Inc for voters, but #8 has an uphill battle as long as Pritzker is Governor.
Pritzker and Trump both refuse to totally disclose tax returns. If they both disclosed the voting public would get a very clear idea of how tax avoiders benefit from our tax code and how seriously they avoid paying their fair share of the nations tax burden.
Of course, Pritzker has consistently refused to fully disclose his tax returns and will never support the idea.

Comment by Back to the Future Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 3:04 pm
@anonning - I didn’t say all legal work. You don’t see the clear conflict of interest in politicians like Madigan having a law firm that makes most of its money on property tax appeals?

Comment by Chicagonk Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 3:06 pm
==At the end of the day, the people in the ComEd Four trial were convicted because what they did was already, and always has been, illegal.==
Glad someone finally said it. I’m voting for none because I’m not encouraging Pat Quinn. Others have already covered how none of his proposals would have affected the scheme.

Comment by Nuke The Whales Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 3:18 pm
=== Thinking #8 would have shed some light on Madigan, Inc for voters, but #8 has an uphill battle as long as Pritzker is Governor. ===

How so? This proposal relates to Constitutional Officers and legislative leaders. Madigan didn’t receive any money relating to the ComEd case so it wouldn’t have provided any additional information to the public other than what we already know. He was the Speaker of the House and had a lucrative law practice.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 3:42 pm
===At the end of the day, the people in the ComEd Four trial were convicted because what they did was already, and always has been, illegal.===

This is called… “Pithy Perfect”

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 3:47 pm
Quinn giving ethics advice is like Rauner giving budgeting advice. A lot of shady stuff happened around and under Quinn.

Comment by Lurker Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 8:06 pm
None. As presented, all are political in framing.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, May 9, 23 @ 8:57 pm
1- no way, every political person I know in California from moderate to leftist hates the system.
2- this is so ill-defined and broad that it can’t be taken seriously
3- sure
4- want to see specific changes spelled out
5- sounds good in theory but I feel like there might be some acceptable cases
6- he’s just getting silly at this point
7- sure
8- define robust

Comment by Anonish Wednesday, May 10, 23 @ 9:57 am