Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Debating reform: More items for your perusal

Posted in:

Illinois

* One reform item which is rarely if ever discussed is the power of local elections boards to do things like this…

Voters in south suburban Bremen Township will see two names on the ballot for township supervisor — Maggie Crotty and Sarah Hamm. But they will be handed a notice saying that a vote for Hamm won’t count. The state appellate court ruled her off the ballot last week, leaving Crotty, a Democratic state senator, to run unopposed.

Earlier, Crotty supporter George Murphy put together an objection to Hamm’s candidacy, saying she did not have sufficient signatures. Murphy arrived at the township office 40 minutes after it closed on the final day to file objections. Murphy called township clerk Leonard J. Hines, who’s running with Crotty, and Hines accepted the objection after hours. A Cook County judge said that smelled fishy and threw out the objection, leaving Hamm on the ballot. The appellate court reversed that ruling last week.

Way too often, local elections boards are controlled by incumbents and their friends and allies and the results are too often predictable. We need a better way.

…Adding… The Sun-Times has posted more info to the story’s online version…

Hines drove to the office, let Murphy in the back door, notarized Murphy’s objection and accepted it after-hours. A Cook County judge said that smelled fishy and threw out the objection, questioning whether an average, unconnected citizen would get the same service from the township clerk. That judge’s ruling left Hamm on the ballot. The appellate court reversed that ruling last week.

* My weekly syndicated newspaper column makes some reform suggestions. I’m not wedded to any of them, but let’s take a look anyway…

I’ve often said I’m a reform agnostic.

It’s not that I don’t believe in good government.

I do. Fervently.

And I most certainly don’t believe as some do that voters should be given the sole responsibility to weed out the crooks and con artists. “Let the buyer beware” just isn’t good enough. Rod Blagojevich’s two consecutive gubernatorial campaign wins and George Ryan’s earlier win proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that voters simply aren’t able to handle this task on their own.

So, we do need some “consumer protection” laws in Illinois. But we should also keep some important points in mind.

For instance, campaign contribution caps are now being pushed hard by good government groups and Gov. Pat Quinn’s independent reform commission. Most want a federal-style program that would cap contributions at about $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for political action committees.

On its face, that looks quite reasonable. Contribution limitations are imposed in Washington, D.C., and many other states.

But caps can also hurt those who challenge the status quo.

It’s probably no coincidence that no incumbent Illinois congressman has lost his or her seat for years unless they were under some sort of extreme ethical cloud. For instance, Dan Rostenkowski got caught up in a probe of the U.S. House post office and was the only Illinois Democrat turned out during the historic 1994 national Republican landslide. Dan Crane was ousted by voters after his involvement in a congressional page sex scandal. Charles Hayes lost a primary when he was linked to a House bounced checks scandal.

Back in 2007, several deeply entrenched Chicago aldermen lost their seats to young reformers because a few reform-minded labor unions dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into their campaigns. If the union contributions had been capped, most of those reformers would’ve lost.

Caps mean that most challengers have to work much harder to raise money. Incumbents have access to financial networks that usually dwarf those of outsiders. National political parties and caucus organizations often take up the slack these days to help level the congressional playing field, but that usually means they choose who runs. The proposals coming out of Springfield would cap those sorts of contributions to state and local candidates.

The horrific venality revealed after Rod Blagojevich’s arrest and indictment has prompted loud and angry calls to “do something and do it now.” One of those “somethings” most often mentioned is campaign contribution caps.

If we’re going down that road then we should do as little harm as possible to challengers. A higher cap, perhaps somewhere near the $10,000 legislative limit proposed by Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno, of Lemont, might be the way to go. It’s high enough to help people fend off uncapped, self-financing millionaire opponents, but low enough to do some reforming good.

Also, barring all campaign donations of any kind to incumbent legislators and statewide officials during the spring legislative session would help even out the playing field for challengers and could prevent some pay to play hanky panky. It might also ensure the General Assembly adjourns on time.

Banning contributions from industries regulated by the government would be an obvious help.

Requiring almost immediate online disclosure of contributions could be an effective deterrent. If we had known in “real time” that Blagojevich was taking $25,000 contributions from his appointees to state boards and commissions, we might have been able to stop some of his excesses.

One of the most important changes we can make has nothing to do with money, however.

Prohibiting incumbents from drawing legislative, congressional, aldermanic and county board district maps is an absolute must. Incumbents in this state “choose” their voters by manipulating their own district boundaries every 10 years.

Iowa allows a computer to draw district maps based on population, not political or other parochial preferences. As the congressional results show, incumbents have far too much advantage, so keeping them from drawing their own maps would be an enormous help.

In the end, though, Illinois voters absolutely must start looking beyond the slick ads, familiar names and blind partisan leanings that have gotten us into this mess. Just about every political reporter in Illinois did his or her very best in the 2006 governor’s race to warn voters they were about to re-elect a crook. But voters bought Blagojevich’s bag of disgusting goods and here we stand.

…Adding… Far too much of the “reform” proposals focus on the evils of money, rather than making elections, including primaries, more competitive and, therefore, more small “d” democratic. I’ll have more on this soon.

* And the Tribune has a couple of reform items it wants passed before the “big” capital projects bill is addressed…

First, a bill sponsored by Rep. Kathleen Ryg (D-Vernon Hills) that would require all proposed transportation projects be measured against specific goals—congestion relief or energy savings, for example—and ranked accordingly. The bill, supported by the Metropolitan Planning Council and Chicago 2020, also seeks to balance the needs of urban and rural communities and to ensure that projects are approved based not on clout but on how well they further statewide goals.

Second, a proposal from the Illinois Reform Commission that would insulate state procurement officers from politics. Setting up an independent office to award contracts would help ensure that those decisions are based on objective and professional standards instead of being manipulated by politicians. The plan would also close numerous loopholes that allow government officials to skirt the procurement process altogether.

* And, via comments on another post, we have this from Quinn commission chairman Patrick Collins…

“We just learned today that we have been invited to testify April 21 before the joint [House/Senate ethics] committee,” he said of a separate reform study group appointed by House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton. “I’m not sure that would have happened a couple of weeks ago.”

Let’s see. Madigan sent his chief legal counsel to testify before Collins’ commission weeks ago, and from what I remember there’s been an open invitation for Collins and his crew to testify at the joint committee.

Thoughts?

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:02 am

Comments

I don’t have a problem with insulating purchasing from politics, but the Reform Commission proposal would insulate purchasing from reality - the real needs of agencies to actually procure things meeting their real needs in real time. It is currently nearly impossible - making the procurement officer even more remote and unaccountable for anything other than “cleanliness” will grind things to a total standstill.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:13 am
I agree that there is a danger of contributions caps making it harder for reform candidates to beat entrenched incumbents. As you mentioned an elected official has access to a network of donors and they have a name recognition advantage from day one, in most cases. The more time that a challenger has to spend raising money from a lot of small donors is less time that can dedicate campaigning and getting their message out.
I think that real time disclosure of big donations would be a good move. So would moving to a computer drawn district. I think that returning to the old 3 member legislative district would be a move in the right direction too. When you have three elected officials from each district, it would, in my opinion, make it more likely that at least one reform minded candidate can would get elected.

Comment by RMWStanford Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:19 am
If there was an open invitation to testify before the joint committee then I have to question the motive of Collin’s comment.

Comment by MOON Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:21 am
Thoughts….

Caps are a feel good measure that will do nothing to end corruption.

The best, although in no way perfect, proposals are information and transparency. perhaps full time independent legisaltive auditors who are constantly reviewing contributions and comparing those to bills supported etc and releasing regular reports on such acitvites would be the most useful. Expand Holland type review of government, (or make a seperate elcted watchdog agency) make reviews and reports more frequent and more public.

Even with FOIA its hard for the citizenry to traverse the complicated transactions and activites of govt to see what is goin on. Provide a lot more auditing and reporting would be the most effective way to bring information to light and to the voters.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:23 am
“Back in 2007, several deeply entrenched Chicago aldermen lost their seats to young reformers because a few reform-minded labor unions dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into their campaigns. If the union contributions had been capped, most of those reformers would’ve lost.”

this last is hypothetical

I gather “reform-minded labor unions” was tongue-in-cheek on your part

you fail to mention the thousands unions dumped into campaigns that DID lose

you fail to mention the thousands dumped into the campaigns of deeply entrenched incumbent Chicago aldermen over the years

your simplistic view gives insufficient credit to voters

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:30 am
“because” is too strong

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:34 am
Is Crotty going to serve as Senator AND Township Supervisor? What’s next, completing a trifecta and running for Mayor?

Comment by Sewanee Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:35 am
===your simplistic view gives insufficient credit to voters===

Yeah, because so many reform aldercritters were elected in the decade or two before 2007. And challengers were able to raise so much money, particularly in poorer areas against entrenched incumbents. And voters actually had a choice.

2007 was the first “real” race that most of those losing incumbents had in years, if ever. And it showed.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:37 am
I think redistricting reform is the ballgame. It opens up the process in so many ways.

Iowa’s system is great, but Iowa is a relatively homogenous state. California’s new and complex “independent” redistricting commission will be on tap after the 2010 census, I believe. California is a lot of things, but homogenous ain’t one of them. The results there will be very interesting to see.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:39 am
is your argument that those interested in elections as a form of democratic expression should oppose caps because the surest road to reform is to protect equal access to government for those groups with hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw around?

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:44 am
Um, no. Try not to twist my words. Caps have simply not worked as advertised, nor will they. They may solve one problem (too much money in the system controlled by the few) while exacerbating another (even more incumbent protection than we have now).

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:47 am
“even more incumbent protection than we have now”

go over this one with me slowly please

I think it would be easy to show that the avg contribution size of an incumbent is much higher than a challenger

don’t caps tend to favor challengers?

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:50 am
===don’t caps tend to favor challengers?===

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:51 am
my experience of perusing aldermanic contributions is that contributions in high 4 figures and 5 figures + are largely an incumbent’s game

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:54 am
wait, you’re not willing to concede that incumbents are more likely to receive large contributions than challengers? what’s your experience?

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 10:58 am
for example, did any of Blago’s challengers have as well-fleshed out of a $25K club?

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:01 am
Banned, since you’re making the case for reform, you need to answer my question: Where is the evidence that contri caps have widely benefitted challengers? I find almost none.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:02 am
Rich, your comment about the lack of competitive elections really gets to the core of the problem. But it goes beyond that: the General Assembly is actually making it harder and harder over time to even have a _contested_ election, let alone a competitive one.

Look no further than House Bill 723, which would all but eliminate the practice of slating. There’s no compelling state interest in this bill - the slating provision has been on the books for decades and has never resulted in a “cluttered ballot” or anything like that. But the House just overwhelmingly passed this piece of garbage, the sole intention of which is to keep the people in the House from having to face any opponents at all in the general election.

This is the kind of crap they pull when everybody is expecting reform. How can anyone seriously believe that Madigan and Cullerton will let any actual meaningful reform through?

Comment by Phil Huckelberry Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:05 am
hey, i’m from Illinois, what do i know from caps?

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:05 am
given my unfortunate accident of geography, may i instead answer with examples of where it seems to me the lack of caps benefited incumbents?

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:08 am
The last Congressional redistricting was the most political in decades. The Congress (Hastert and Chicago Democrat incumbents) drew up their own map to save their districts. They also put future competitors in adjacent districts so they could not run against the incumbent. Look at the map for Bloomington, Spring Valley and the 10th Ward. All had potential candidates that had run for Congress, or were possible candidates with good name recognition. They were drawn into other districts at the very edge of the new district. Weller eliminated two opponents while Tim Johnson eliminated one.
That is where the real reform should occur.

Comment by Tom Joad Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:10 am
There is plenty of research out there, I am sure. Someone go look through the poli sci journals and see what has been done recently on the effect of McCain-Feingold.

Comment by George Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:17 am
I still like the caveat emptor method of politics. I’d like to see transparency, like real-time publishing of contributions and donros, so that the voters have some information. However, I don’t much like caps. In the case of Ryan, the problem was solved by the Feds and in the case of Blago, it was solved by a combination of the Feds and the IL Assembly. So, I don’t see why we need to do something to prevent another Blago or Ryan, when we have a methodology to deal with them after we’ve bought them.

Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:25 am
BannedForLife, I asked you a simple freaking question. If you think caps are great things, then show me specifics about how they’ve benefitted challengers.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 11:49 am
Rich,

I think you’re right that fed caps are too low but some caps are required to deal with the most flagrant abuses. It’s simply too easy for politicians in this state to be bought wholesale. I’d prefer they be bought retail…and on sale.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:29 pm
As to Collins comment, it’s unfortunate. I think there’s a widespread belief that the joint legislative commission is there to prevent meaningful reforms by diverting attention to less important but big sounding reforms. I think this is what Collins was tapping into.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:31 pm
Banned, maybe go do some reading. I just did a quick search of google scholar and found:

Competition policy for elections: Do campaign contribution limits matter?

State Campaign Finance Regulations and Electoral Competition

Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S

Campaign Finance and Voter Welfare with Entrenched Incumbents

In France

In Brazil

From the conservatives

There’s even a book

Comment by George Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:38 pm
sorry, i thought you wanted to debate, i was mislead by the thread title

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:08 pm
If you say something will reform the process, then tell me how it will reform the process. That’s all. Tell me how caps will help break the cycle of incumbency, which is a very serious problem in this state and this country.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:10 pm
isn’t that clever, demanding of a resident of Illinois that they come up with concrete examples where caps benefited challengers

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:11 pm
well, I’m not the columnist who wrote in a major that caps benefit incumbents

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:13 pm
Hey, I’m also the blog owner. lol

it’s a simple question. try to answer it.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:14 pm
Caps favor incumbents because of real or imagined perceptions about the effects of going against an incumbent. If I, Q Corp, dont like the current official and want to try and push a Q corp firnedl canidate, I am limited from helping to get an insurgent capaign off the ground. I have to weight my limited ability to get the challanger going with the perception that I could anger the incumbent and draw fire from them legislativly. Recongizing that the amount I am limited to commiting means I can not help get an effective campaign going. I stay the safe route and toss my few bucks at the incumbent hoping to appease the volcano.

Take the spfld mayor race. The incumbent came out and tols potential contributors he would not take money from those who supported his opponent. This sure likked like an incumbent warning that you needed to appease him at the expense of his opponent if you wanted his good graces.

it is harder for an unknown to get the notiriety and support from a large grouping of buisness, especcial if those buisnesses fear backing an unknow. That said, our new upstart canidate may have the ability to pursuade one or two large contributors to provide sufficient backing to make a real run for the office.

In short, caps favor the incumbent because they can draw on the perception that the safe bet is to back the person in office. They hurt new contenders because their best shot at fund raising is to find a sugar daddy to back their play.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 1:28 pm
Banned, you ain’t getting back in until you answer my question.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 2:53 pm
Caps don’t work. Look at the federal requirements. From Buckley v. Valeo to the changes under McCain Feigngold we see no proof that caps level the playing field for incumbent or challengers. We now have politicians spending all of their time raising money because of the potential of a wealthy donor to come in and spend as much money as they want.

These changes come up after every election cycle or a new scandal. What is failed to be seen is that what Blago did is Illegal. It was before he did it and it still is. He took corruption to the next level but changing the current system would not have changed that. He still would have done it. The changes being implemented and looked at in the pension system and the procurement process is what we should be focusing on.

Comment by Wow Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 2:55 pm
my dad used to snap his fingers and claim it warded off elephants, if questioned he would ask me to prove it didn’t work

Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 2:59 pm
BFL’s nom de plume looks like it will actually come to pass. What a visionary.

Comment by Jake from ? Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 3:43 pm
lol

It’s just a simple question. Sheesh.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 3:44 pm
I think it’s a little difficult to conclusively argue that caps made the difference in one race or another. Among other things, those of us who are primarily familiar with Illinois don’t have a lot to reference except federal races, and with federal races, there are so many other problems, such as gerrymandering.

The caps are not just about election fairness, though. They also have to do with politicians being legally bought off by moneyed interests, be those interests corporations, unions, or whatever.

And the caps, while important, are not the only reform that needs to be implemented. Corporate contributions should be outright banned, just as they are at the federal level. And public financing has been proven to work in Maine and Arizona; public financing combined with caps and corporate bans has been demonstrated to change the way elections play out.

Rich’s point about how caps would have adversely affected challengers for aldermanic races in Chicago in 2007 is correct within the surrounding context of those races, but the leading advocates of caps have serious issues with the context as well.

As for the remark that what Blago did was illegal; sure, a lot of it was. And a lot of it wasn’t. A lot of the Pay To Play crap was, and still is, perfectly legal, and is still being practiced. The entire system in Springfield is corrupt and needs to be thoroughly reformed. Caps are a critical component of that. And so is computer districting, as Rich advocates for in his piece. We need all of it, together, to make a real difference.

Comment by Phil Huckelberry Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 3:46 pm
Re: proposed caps -does anyone give $10,000 to a candidate and a) expect nothing in return or b) receive nothing in return? And hey, is my spelling ok???

Comment by envelop Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 4:03 pm
===does anyone give $10,000 to a candidate and a) expect nothing in return ===

People give $10 and expect something in return. You’d be surprised.

So, if that’s the case, then how is $2500 really all that much “better” than $10K? Is there some magical mystical dividing line at which nobody expects or gets anything?

Money may be the root of all evil, but it’s all we got.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 4:08 pm
As far as the ban on contributions during session, this might be an interesting read: http://ncsl.typepad.com/the_thicket/2009/04/fundraising-bans-during-legislative-sessions.html

About redistricting, just remember, the more “clever” your new map, the more dangerous it is for your own good. If you have your own party coasting by razor-thin margins in lots of swing districts, it doesn’t take much of change in the mood of the electorate to swamp you. Just remember, Denny Hastert’s and Tom DeLay’s districts both went to Dems once they were out.

Also, from goo goos I’ve talked to, I’ve heard that the importance of the independence of the group doing the redistricting (i.e. in California) might be overblown. The thing about Iowa’s redistricting process is that it’s very formulaic; the people doing the redrawing don’t have a lot of discretion in how to do it.

I’m not saying redistricting isn’t worth paying attention to. I just think it’s more complicated than people portray it.

Comment by Dan Vock Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 4:14 pm
RM-what eactly would a person who donates $10 conceivably expect? A job? A no-bid contract? A person who contributes $10,000 might have such expectations, and, at least in the past, might have a chance of having them met

Comment by envelop Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 4:15 pm
Go out and deal with contributors and you’ll see. They really do think they ought to have a say over votes, or jobs or whatever for their little ten bucks. Heck, I occasionally get this attitude with my $350 subscription price.

Again, there is no magical dividing line where this behavior suddenly stops. Please do not persist in implying that this mythical divisor exists. It doesn’t.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 4:17 pm
===once they were out.===

And there’s the point. They are drawn to benefit individual members. It needs to stop.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 4:19 pm
Phil Huckelberry has it exactly right. Caps won’t solve all problems, but are still an essential part of the solution.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 6:00 pm
Lets talk about Ryg’s suggestions for transportation project selection. Why should should local projects support statewide goals? Local goals may be different from state goals.

Putting in strict criteria for project selection is bound to result in unintended consequences, for example too much investment in economically successful areas that have lots of traffic and congestion at the expense of declining neighborhoods who no longer get much traffic but have decrepit infrastructure. Since road investment is funded by taxpayers, deciding on expenditure priorities are rightly a political as well as a scientific process.

Comment by NoGiftsPlease Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 6:08 pm
RM, so you basically deny the follwoing: some people (politicians and others) will do something for more money (say 10,000 or 25,000) than they would for far less (say 250)? that is both counterintuitive and counter to fact. scale matters.

Comment by enevlop Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 6:47 pm
===so you basically deny the follwoing===

No. What I said was there is no magical dividing line. Sheesh, are you daft?

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 8:17 pm
of courserse there is no magic line. I never said there was. I said that politicians respond to the scale of contributions. A calim you failed to respond to. And ad hominems never advance debate in intelligent and respectful discourse.

Comment by enevlop Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 8:45 pm