Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

The reality of contribution caps

Posted in:

Illinois

* Carol Marin writes about a conversation between Sheila Simon, a member of the governor’s independent reform commission, and Steve Brown…

One of the interesting conversations Simon had last week was with Steve Brown, the longtime spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan. Brown’s criticism, something he says he has expressed many times, is that the reform seekers, by and large, haven’t ever contributed to a political campaign. “Kind of curious,” Brown said by phone Tuesday, “that people hold themselves out when they have never made a donation.”

“That was an interesting assessment to me,” Simon said. “I’m regarded as not being a political contributor and yet I think we are regular and active participants and not naive in anyway.”

Brown argues that with regard to the last two indicted Illinois governors, Ryan and Blagojevich, “neither of the two gubernatorial scandals would have been affected by limits.” But beyond that, he says, “If you talk to people who worked in limit systems, all they talked about was how much time they had to spend raising money.”

Though Simon disagrees with the first point, on the second she does not. “I watched dad go through elections with federal limits. I’m not saying it was fun. But you don’t run for election because it’s fun, you run because there’s something you want to accomplish in government.”

Actually, a search of the Illinois State Board of Elections site shows that Ms. Simon has made just two contributions which have been disclosed by campaigns, both for $25 to Lisa Madigan.

Sheila’s father, the late US Sen. Paul Simon, constantly complained about the money he had to raise for reelection. But Sen. Simon did support campaign contribution caps when he pushed an ethics reform bill in the 1990s. Then-state Sen. Barack Obama also favored caps at the time.

I posted a comment about Ms. Simon on the blog yesterday which referred to her unsuccessful bid for Carbondale mayor. Simon limited contributions during that campaign to just $50…

[Simon’s losing, contribution-capped campaign] would make her an expert, however. She’s also an expert in running as a reformer and being bashed by the local media as a Democratic Machine tool, even though her contributions were capped at $50 and her opponent was taking tons of help from the state GOP.

The editorial boards screaming loudest these days for reform are the same ones who dumped on just about every reformer candidate we’ve ever had. Just ask Glenn Poshard about the Chicago Tribune, for example.

This is about more than just legislation. It’s about changing attitudes. And the Trib and the Southern Illinoisan have had horrible attitudes.

The Tribune endlessly banged on Poshard for bending his own, self-imposed campaign contribution caps, while endorsing George Ryan - despite clear evidence that commercial drivers licenses were being sold in exchange for campaign contributions.

Until we get a better editorial corps in this state, I’ll be wary of limiting candidate ~~spending~~ [contributions] too much. I still support caps, but newspaper editorial boards are a prime reason to be suspicious.

* Meanwhile, GateHouse has a “fumigation bill” update…

As proposed last week by House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), the bill targets nearly 3,000 state workers and members of boards and commissions who got their positions while Blagojevich and George Ryan served as governors. If Madigan’s bill becomes law, those workers can stay for another 60 days before they lose their jobs. During that time, Quinn could decide to keep the people in their positions.

Steve Brown, Madigan’s spokesman, said there’s “been some conversation between our staff and the governor’s staff” about changing the bill. He said Tuesday there’s been no agreement on the changes and refused to discuss it further.

Bob Reed, spokesman for Gov. Pat Quinn, said the office is still reviewing House Bill 4450 and “may propose some changes,” but said it is too early to discuss them.

It’s very likely that the bill will eventually be changed.

* And the Aurora Beacon-News has an interesting back and forth over the stalled Plainfield hospital proposal, which involves reform commission member Edward Hospital CEO Pam Davis…

“It is unfortunate that Edward Hospital CEO Pamela Meyer Davis and the hospital continue to try every means possible to gain approval,” wrote Brickman, Finn and Mace [area hospital CEOs]. “Their latest antic in Springfield is to fire state staff and change the rules for approving new hospitals.”

The village of Plainfield wasted no time in responding. Acting Village Administrator Don Bennett fired off a letter to the editor that questioned the executives’ motivation.

“I think that they’re trying to, through the health facilities planning board, force geographical areas to come to their facilities, even though they may not either have the resources to handle it or the ability for your doctor to go to that facility,” Bennett said Tuesday.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 10:50 am

Comments

The major print medica in Chicago has lost most of it’s credibility (present company excluded) over the years - the Tribune bashing Poshard and supporting Ryan is one good example. While I still subscribe it’s mostly for the crosswords and funny pages (is that like saying I buy Playboy for the articles?).

Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 11:00 am
Maybe I am missing something, but I find it baffling that people continually say that contribution limits would not have stopped Blagojevich.

The whole premise of the case against him are the following charges:
1) That Stu Levine and Rezko were trying to raise large sums from pension fund managers on his behalf ($1.5 million contribution?).

2) That appointments to various boards were being traded for $25,000 checks.

3) That he was hitting up state contractors and other interests for large sums of money in exchange for executive decisions.

4) That he was considering making a senate appointment to an individual who would raise $1 million + for him.

The whole case is about the influence of large sums of money. Some may say “Blagojevich was a crook and crooks are crooks.”

That may be the case, but if Rod couldn’t raise millions of dollars in large chunks of money in exchange for favors, we would be talking about Congressman Rod the crook or Unemployed Rod the crook. Not Governor.

Comment by George Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 11:04 am
Rich, you know there are many ways to be a contributor other than cash. Work a phone bank, walk precincts, volunteer at headquarters, etc. Maybe some of the Commissioners contribute in those ways.

Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 11:08 am
George, RRB could’ve gotten around caps in various ways, including bundling contributions. One downstate party chairman, for instance, threw a funder for Blagojevich which raised $25K and then that person was put on a state board. Also, the Tribune broke down his last race against Topinka and found that he would’ve drastically outraised her if caps had been in place.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 11:12 am
I think they same laws restricting Federal employees from participating in elections should be applied to State and County employees.

Many of those folks knocking on your door at election time are doing it following orders from above (i.e. where they got their job) , and not because they have a personal interest in a particular position or candidate.

Comment by Tollway Joe Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 11:13 am
I’m sure all candidates, especially incumbents, would love to see limits on spending. But if you can’t do that, how can you limit fundraising?

Maybe in the future when “we’re all riding rocket ships and talking with our minds,” as John Prine said, it will be easier to get money out of politics.

Until then, in statewide races, candidates need lots of money for tv and radio, print, postage, travel, etc., just to get their messages out. And like they teach in Marketing 101, for the message to be effective it needs to be repeated over and over. Otherwise, candidates will find themselves “wearing turquoise jewelry and standing in soup lines.”

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 11:15 am
To be frank, though, he wasn’t charged with anything in relation to that. And to be frank even more, a downstate party chairman probably has a good shot at some state board regardless who is in there.

Yes, he could have switched to bundling, and then you have a DC-type system where the bundlers get all the influence. And I am sure he was bundling already.

But bundling doesn’t accomplish numbers 1 & 3 above. And those appear to be the core of the case against him.

Comment by George Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 11:21 am
The State Journal-Register has a searchable database of employees purportedly affected by HB4450. Unfortunately, it is grossly inaccurate because the start dates of many of the people do not fall within the 1999 - 2009 time frame in the bill.

Comment by Bird Dog Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 11:25 am
A couple points on ‘06:

- You put in contribution caps and ban contractor contributions, its a lot closer.

- If its closer, maybe Topinka does get that $5 million she was allegedly promised from national republicans.

- And maybe you have a more viable primary challenger in ‘06, since Rod can’t rely on the fear of state contractors to pad his campaign fund.

Comment by George Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 11:25 am
The reality of limits on campaign spending caps or contribution caps is that the wealthy and incumbents will have a distinct advantage!!

Comment by MOON Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 11:32 am
i tire of the holier than thou stance of most media reporters and editorialists—the major driver behind political fundraising is the need to buy ads—particularly tv time—let’s talk about limiting the number or costs of ads and see how they feel about reform

Comment by publius Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 11:35 am
I too searched the data base of my agency to see who is among the 3000. If it is accurate, very interesting reading. Saw lots of hard working clerical folks on the list. They are only there because management used improved job titles as a way to increase their pay for good work after they topped out on step 7 under the AFSCME contract (gaming the system in a good way?).

Out of a group of regional managers, only saw one listed amoung the 3000. All, on paper anyway, do the exact same job. (gaming the system or inaccurate list?)

Then I saw folks on the list who are named in federal subpeonas and not because they are concerned whistle blowers. How the heck are these people still employed by the taxpayer?
Don’t know if they are guilty of crimes but it is no doubt they are part of the problem that needs fumigating.

Thenk went back to the list and saw the people brought on by the people Blago foisted on us. Some are nice folks. A few even competent. Most however don’t or can’t make a decision without considering the political ramifications above anything else.

Folks in the previous two paragraphs of this rant need to be gone - yesterday.

Comment by Leave a light on George Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 12:05 pm
I gave Sheila Simon my $50 (and still have the t-shirt) but wasn’t surprised when she lost. Some friends said the party did not want to lose that seat, and I wasn’t aware of the amount of Repub cash and “volunteers” flowing into that race until it was too late.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 12:12 pm
Southern Illinois, its people and its candidates rarely get a fair shake from the Chicago Tribune. The Trib, and its writers, are too far away from us, geographically and culturally. It would seem they generally don’t understand anything south of Joliet. Most people in Southern Illinois know that and often joke about it, so it is really nothing new. The fact that the Trib refers to ANYTHING outside of Cook County as “Downstate” is a good example of what I’m talking about.

Comment by Deep South Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 12:53 pm
===The fact that the Trib refers to ANYTHING outside of Cook County as “Downstate” is a good example of what I’m talking about. ===

That’s just silly. Show us where they did that, please.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 1:00 pm
Maybe it is a bad example. Toss is out. But I stand by everything that came before that. And that was the point of my post. This may be a better example: Have you read anything in the Trib about the devastating storm that hit down here? Tens of thousands of people without power for days…homes destroyed. The dollar amount, if it can compiled, is gonna unbelieveable. It may have to be north of I-64 for the Trib to even raise an eyebrow.

Comment by Deep South Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 1:19 pm
SJ-R just released a blurb that the executive comitte has decided not to vote on the bil today terminating the 3000+ State workers. http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1194170769/Committee-delays-vote-on-firings-bill

Comment by Ghost Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 1:23 pm
has anyone put a price tag on what it would cost the state to fire these people associated with that HB? Long term people probably have payable time on the books. Would bet it will cost millions!!

Comment by Hank Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 1:39 pm
If the fumigation bill requires the top 3000
(that is, 5%) of serving Ill. government employees…that is, the highest level double exempt and term (four year) employees, all highly paid…to reapply for their jobs, then it should not be changed.

The indivduals who replace high level Blago appointees (should that ever happen to any significant extent….still uncertain) then the new brooms need to have the freedom to select their own staff. It is unfair to ask a chief executive to make major reforms (and major reforms are needed in virtually all state of Illinois agencies) without the support of employees they respect and trust. High level state jobs are not supposed to be sinecures–they are supposed to be places for the best and the brightest. Currently, to a significant extent, they are not.

Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 2:34 pm
Cassandra, the Governor already controls the Directors and Associate Directors, and roughly 600 Rutan-exempt, and there haven’t been many changes so far

Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 3:32 pm
I assume that’s why Madigan is giving him a push.
Not to say Madigan will be able to resist the deluge of calls from mostly Dem legislators asking that their spouses, relatives, and campaign contributors be spared.

I see this bill, if it flies, as being a huge benefit to those trying to set the state right.
Incoming directors can pick their own staff. And
directors who keep their jobs can evaluate existing staff and replace them as they see fit.
Many are likely saddled with at least a few nonperformers or superfluous staff and this is an opportunity to replace them as part of an overall reorganization, without appearing to single anyone out, and backed by the legislature. Maybe they’ll actually consolidate some units in some of the agencies overstaffed with administrators.

Or maybe not.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 3:56 pm
LOL! I’m told that the AG is already circulating lists (and some of the people on them.) What are you people thinking?

Comment by David Starrett Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 6:20 pm
See the forest.

Comment by David Starrett Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 6:31 pm
Gee, what do you think the feds would do if a whole bunch of federally-funded employees were fired based upon some perceived political affiliation? Never mind - I already know.

Comment by Bird Dog Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 6:54 pm
Cassandra- I am one of the names on that list. I’ve been a state employee for 22 years. I was promoted to SPSA under Edgar. Like lots of people we suffered under Blagojevich’s policy and was happy to see him go. I’d be happy to talk with you at your convenience about my experiences working for a rather large state agency. But you tar everyone with the same brush.

So please stop with the “fumigating” talk. That’s offensive. I am not a cockroach. Nor did I ever serve as Blagojevich’s campaign chair. Nor as his Lieutenant Governor. Yet the fumigating starts with me and not them?

Comment by DuPage Dave Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 6:56 pm
Re “She’s also an expert in running as a reformer and being bashed by the local media as a Democratic Machine tool”

I am reminded that Sheila Simon’s father was successfully branded as a Democratic Machine tool by the “reformer” running against him for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 1972. The “reformer” of course was Dan Walker who, like other recent Governors, wound up in jail.

Comment by jake Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 7:23 pm
To clean up politics/government - Limit what campaign funds can be spent on, narrowly defining what constitutes legitimate campaign expenditures.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 13, 09 @ 8:04 pm
Fumigate even more of them, please! There are lots of people that should be on the list that aren’t. State government is rife with lazy, arrogant game-playing hacks. Most of them couldn’t qualify to work anywhere else. They folow whatever leader “matters” at the time like lemmings. We all know it. Get rid of them! I am enjoying this very much!

Comment by Sick of All of Them Thursday, May 14, 09 @ 2:20 am