Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a campaign and ballot challenge roundup
Next Post: Today’s chart
Posted in:
* When I see reporters quoting out of state “experts” on stuff like this, I usually tend to ignore the rest of the story…
“Permitting officials to hold outside jobs is a really bad idea,” said Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor and former White House ethics counsel.
Yeah, so no farmers, no practicing lawyers, no business owners, no doctors, no teachers, no nothing in the General Assembly except full-time politicians. Right. That’s what we need. It’s working so well for Congress, right?
* However, this story does include some interesting info. For instance…
Lawmakers like State Representative Dan Burke, Democrat of Chicago, have shown themselves adept at working within the rules that govern lobbying by public officials. Burke is the brother of Ed Burke, a powerful Chicago alderman (he is not related to Christopher B. Burke, the engineer).
A lobby report filed with the city shows Dan Burke was paid $5,000 to lobby City Hall for the Chicago Roofing Contractors Association, the local wing of the industry group that represents roofing contractors throughout the state.
In February 2005, Burke co-sponsored a bill backed by the association of state roofing contractors that sought to protect its member companies from competition. Burke said his sponsorship was not a conflict of interest, even though the measure, which passed, benefited his client.
Speaking of the line separating his city lobbying activities and his state legislative actions, Burke said: “It’s murky, of course, but I was careful not to blend the roles.”
He shouldn’t have done that. As an example, it’s no big deal for a farmer to sponsor a bill that benefits all or most farmers. It wouldn’t be right, however, for a farmer to sponsor or vote for a bill that benefited only his own farm.
* But this seems like a stretch. Suffredin abstained on six votes a year and this is presented as some gigantic problem?…
Larry Suffredin, a member of the Cook County Board, said that he responds to the problem by scrupulously abstaining on matters involving his legal clients and even companies in which he owns stock. But abstention can cause its own problems, leaving constituents disenfranchised when the people they elect do not vote on key issues.
Suffredin, who has lobbied in Springfield and Chicago on behalf of scores of clients, from big pharmaceutical companies to McCormick Place contractors to gambling companies, abstained from at least 30 votes over the past five years, county records show. That included votes on a $50 million Motorola contract with the juvenile detention center, county health contracts with GE Medical Systems and Abbott Laboratories, and tax increases on food, beverages and hotel stays.
* Look, I think you can make a pretty good case that elected officials shouldn’t be permitted to lobby other elected bodies. But I don’t think that Suffredin is a particularly egregious example of abuse. What the article above doesn’t mention is that his profession was a major campaign issue when Suffredin first ran for office (including his lobbying for a tobacco company, which wasn’t exactly popular in Evanston), but the voters went with him despite a very hard-fought campaign and have stayed with him ever since. What he does for a living hasn’t been some big secret.
Also, it is a bit tiresome to always see lobbyists portrayed in the media as suspect criminals. The vast majority of lobbyists are pretty darned conscientious people. The simplistic stereotypes constantly perpetuated by the media is basically just laziness masquerading as cynicism.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 8:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a campaign and ballot challenge roundup
Next Post: Today’s chart
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I listened to this story on NPR this morning and had the same reaction. More crusading “journalism” conducted by people with obviously little knowledge of their subject matter.
They paint with an amazingly broad brush and reach a ridiculous conclusion.
Comment by Adam Smith Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 8:49 am
transparency comes in many forms, filings, articles. good to have a reminder now and again to keep things on the straight and narrow, which most do. but, yes, lobbyists are not criminals!
Comment by amalia Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 8:54 am
Years ago, the Chicago City Council members were paid substantially less than they are today. Most aldermen had second jobs such as practicing law, selling real estate or insurance, etc. Some of the aldermen were quite good at providing constituent services and nobody blinked at their side incomes from operating other businesses. Later on, some of the goos goos decided that aldermanic corruption would be halted if salaries were increased, so the paychecks soon came to resemble what people would earn at full-time jobs.
The substantial pay increase did not help matters. Aldermen still kept their outside businesses and corruption continued unabated. Worse of all, constituent services actually declined. Most current aldermen cannot begin to provide the same level of services that their predecessors did a few decades ago.
Comment by Esquire Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:15 am
Part of the issue is how different jurisdictions define lobbying. You can do things in the Statehouse that are not lobbying, but that are at the City or County. The report didn’t consider those differences at all; maybe they didn’t apply to their examples, but people should remember that “lobbying” is different activities in different jurisdictions.
Comment by Elo Kiddies Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:17 am
Richard Painter is entitled to his opinion but I would rather have a bunch of regular folk who have an outside job in politics.
Comment by Kerfuffle Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:24 am
Wow it surprise me who stupid so called experts can be at points. The idea that you dont want office holders to have activities outside of their office. I think it lot better for a GA member to be working outside of the GA to and have that contact to help keep the group think mentality from setting in.
Comment by RMWStanford Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:26 am
As an aside, we have some elected officials holding more than one elected position. The test is whether the offices are “incompatible.” Would it not be easier to state that an elected official can only hold one public office?
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:26 am
===Would it not be easier to state that an elected official can only hold one public office? ===
The idea behind a citizens legislature is that people come from all walks of life. That would necessarily include public employees.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:32 am
- RMWStanford - “Wow it surprise me who stupid so called experts can be at points.”
I hate to call the expert stupid in this case because we don’t know what the question was to which he was responding or the context in which it was asked. Journalists have a way of making smart people look stupid on occasion. No offense intended Rich!
Comment by Kerfuffle Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:34 am
A farmer is different than a lobbyist. Of course there should be some exceptions to a ban on outside income for government officials, but lobbying income should not be one of them.
Although I now live out of state, I have lived in Illinois for much of my life, going back to the days of Governor Dan Walker. Indeed, I have lived in Illinois under three governors who subsequently went to prison. Illinois has produced two Presidents and many other fine political leaders, but it is time to clean up the act on ethics.
Richard Painter
Comment by Richard W. Painter Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:41 am
The revolving door between the legislature and lobbying is very real and very problematic. Most recent example - Kevin McCarthy and ComEd. According to your own reporting Rich, McCarthy is about to become a utility lobbyist immediately after he sponsored the ComEd bill. I know most folks like McCarthy, but between this and Mike Jacobs, it stinks to high heaven. I was struck and saddened by the fact that your story earlier in the week about McCarthy provoked ZERO outrage.
While I would agree with you that the story was a bit OTT in terms of Suffredin, this is an area that requires a hell of a lot more scrutiny and this is a good start.
Comment by Anon 312 Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:42 am
–Indeed, I have lived in Illinois under three governors who subsequently went to prison.–
So if GA members had been banned from having outside jobs, that would have kept Kerner, Ryan and Blago from doing what they did…….. how?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:46 am
The McCarthy thing is a separate issue. He’s resigning and will likely become a lobster. An easy reform is a revolving door prohibition on lobbying the GA for a set period.
The Jacobs thing is also a separate issue. He’s not a lobster, his father is. The real problem there (beyond Jacobs’ own faults) was with Senate leadership, which allowed Jacobs to sponsor the ComEd bill.
All of that is different from politicians lobbying other bodies.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:47 am
“Of course there should be some exceptions to a ban on outside income for government officials”
“Permitting officials to hold outside jobs is a really bad idea,”
Umm…
Also, what Wordslinger said. None of those three governors were ever lobbyists. Jim Thompson is a lobster, and Jim Edgar has been active in the GA, but neither one of those men has ever been indicted. So, I don’t get your point.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 9:49 am
Here is a little background on the “experts”…the guy worked in the Bush White House while Rove was trying to oust US Attorney with the help of Scooter Libby AND he got a check from IL taxpayers while at the U of I during Ryan & Blagoof….. by the way it was a 2 year stint at the WH….
“Professor Richard W. Painter received his B.A., summa cum laude, in history from Harvard University and his J.D. from Yale University, where he was an editor of the Yale Journal on Regulation. …..later practiced at Sullivan & Cromwell in New York City and Finn Dixon & Herling in Stamford, Connecticut…..law faculty at the University of Oregon School of Law and the University of Illinois College of Law,……
From February 2005 to July 2007, he was Associate Counsel to the President in the White House Counsel’s office, serving as the chief ethics lawyer for the President, White House employees and senior nominees to Senate-confirmed positions in the Executive Branch…..
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:03 am
“An easy reform is a revolving door prohibition on lobbying the GA for a set period.”
There’s been talk of instituting a revolving door rule for legislators, and staff, who want to become lobbyists, but the push back has been very strong. Just saying that “obvious” is a better word for this than “easy.”
Comment by Elo Kiddies Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:06 am
The NYT-Medill reporta are pretty thin. The big Rosemont example points to an unanimous vote to hire of a firm that does tons of work throughout the state….then they try to suggest Sufferdin’s constituents are in a vast wasteland of disenfranchisement because he abstains and appears to conclude we need a “full time” legislature…..Yikes talk about poor advice from the uninformed.
Should Medill parents start asking for refunds?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:08 am
I don’t know how you get your news but this was not some random story hidden somewhere. In the print version it takes up the top 3/4 of the page and has a nasty looking picture of cullerton with a follow up on the side. I know in Springfield you work with lots of good lobbyists who care about the state and their business or labor or non profit clients, but given the state’s issues with corruption the fact that the 99.99 percent of us who aren’t part of the inside game, and to see a headline where a state senate president is spending his time as a paid lobbyist. It’s just wrong on so many levels.
If you want i can take a smartphone picture and email it to you.
Comment by shore Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:09 am
The more I think about it, and without consulting archives of Blue Books, it seems to me that the number of GA members who describe themselves as “full-time legislators” has been on a steady upward arc over the years.
And, without naming names, off the top of my head I can think of a few “full-time legislators” who might be considered leaning toward the ethically challenged side of the spectrum.
I don’t think Mr. Painter has solved the problem of the corruptibility of human nature.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:11 am
shore, their placement is not my problem. Also, Cullerton does a bit of zoning work, which requires him to register as a lobster in Chicago. Take a breath.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:14 am
===“obvious” is a better word for this than “easy.” ===
Agreed.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:15 am
–the fact that the 99.99 percent of us who aren’t part of the inside game,–
Shore has just raised the stakes. He is the 99.99%. Bang that drum, dude!
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:16 am
Congress was originally designed as a citizen legislature. Of course, that has changed over time and being a Congressperson or Senator is more than a full-time job at this point in our nation’s history. I think it would be very bad form for a sitting Congressperson or Senator to try and hold down outside employment. However, the ILGA is technically a part-time body. As such, their members are not full-time legislators, although they sure as heck are paid like they are full-time. It’s not unconscionable for a state rep from Chicago or Lake County to hold down a gig as an attorney or corporate VP or small business owner. But I do agree that lobbying would bend my rules of what’s acceptable for sitting elected officials. There is always the possibility of a conflict of interest since members of the ILGA vote on every possible facet of people’s private lives, business interests and state business. It would not be hard for people to stretch even an NFP advocacy/lobbying gig into something nefarious.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:18 am
Wordslinger-
“I’m a Republican politician running for the State Senate. I’m a business owner. I am the .01%”
/ducks
Comment by John Bambenek Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:25 am
I agree that elected officials should not lobby other branches of government; pick a lane! You are serving the public or you are not. Lobbying another branch of government is not consistent with that and conflicts of interest are almost impossible to avoid.
However, not holding any other job? Are you kidding? While a legislator’s salary is nothing to scoff at, it is also a lot less money than many legislators can make otherwise and in some areas of the state its much harder to live on - especially with cost of living, children, housing, etc. Such a move would limit the field to those who are already rich, have retired with a pension (!) or are married/otherwise partnered and have someone to help pay the bills.
As far as the revolving door, it is not synonymous with unethical behavior. It is already illegal to trade official state action for any benefit, including a job later on. Establishing strong relationships and a knowledge of the system is not unethical. What if someone were to leave the legislature and work for AARP, the Sierra Club, or the like? Would that be ok but ComEd or AT&T would not be? This “reform” idea will do nothing but limit the field of those willing to serve - and with the problems were are facing now, that’s the last thing we need.
If you are doing it right, and you are not taking advantage of the system (as a well-publicized minority of elected officials have done, unfortunately), the reality is that public service is a major sacrifice financially and otherwise. Tying someone’s hands after they choose to leave public service is just not right; they’ve made a decision to no longer serve the public and they should be free to pursue a living like anybody else.
Comment by Oh please... Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:28 am
JB, I’ve always thought your views fell into a.01% category of something.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:34 am
Perhaps the best known elected official/lobbyist was Joe Berrios, who was on the Cook County Board of Review and was County Democratic Chairman while he lobbied the video poker bill through Springfield. If that example passes the ethical test on this board, then what wouldn’t?
Comment by reformer Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:44 am
oh please, I agree with most of what you’re saying but what’s wrong with a revolving door law? It’s done routinely with exec branch types and Federal types, so what makes the ILGA so special?
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:48 am
Well said reformer.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 10:51 am
Working at another job while serving in the GA, is ok, but I prefer the more serious, better prepared, and diligent full-timer to be working for the public. Lobbyists and staff take over too much of the law-making process from elected officials who do not spend enough time at their legislative jobs.
Also, while working at another job can bring in different perspectives on an ongoing basis, so can taking significant time to meet in-depth with constituents and businesses, (not their advocates), when the legislature is not in session. The relative financial sacrifice for full-time legislators is real, but not unworkable for most.
While most or all of the concurrent politician/lobbyists may be honest and entirely ethical, this practice has always looked suspicious to me, and risks harming the already weak public trust in government. It’s the old “appearance” standard.
Comment by walkinfool Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 11:52 am
In defense of Richard Painter, don’t know if he’s from IL, but he has ties. Was a law professor at U of I not too long ago.
Good guy.
Comment by just sayin' Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:16 pm
Chicago Cynic, your name says it all!
The revolving door sounds good, after all it will crack down on all those nasty elected officials who are in it only for their own gain, right?!Therefore, to a cynical and scandal-weary electorate it seems like a good idea and is passed as “reform”.
Unfortunately, that is the case with many of our ethics “reforms” - they sound good but do little to prevent wrongdoing and make the honest, hardworking people on staff, around the rail and serving in public office jump through a lot of hoops. And they make great mailpieces…
I remember the pre-Blagojevich sweeping ethics reform package championed by the Coalition for Pol Reform in 2007…boy, that didn’t do much to stop the rampant abuses in that admininistration.
Wrongdoers will do wrong, regardless of what law we pass. Haven’t we learned that by now?
Oh, and CC, it’s not that the GA, legislative staff and executive staff not subject to the revolving door are “special” - they don’t have a role in issuing contacts, the trigger for revolving door policies regarding state employees who deal with the award of contracts. That actually makes some sense, unlike a generalized revolving door policy which really doesn’t.
Comment by Oh please... Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:28 pm
The stories in the NYT midwest print edition run on p21 after the obits — not top billing.
Wonder if Prof Painter could comment on his days (actually 2 whole years in government service the Rove White House) and how that helped shape his views?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:29 pm
It is not outside income, it is should elected officials lobby other parts of government.
Take Larry Suffredin from cook county, in 2011 he listed about 18 clients, and he was representing anti-gun groups whe. The county was passing anti-gun legislation.
Those are the types of things that should be prohibited.
P.s. I like our legislature a lot better than Indy’s
Comment by Todd Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:55 pm
===P.s. I like our legislature a lot better than Indy’s ===
LOL
You still over there fighting right to work?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 12:59 pm
There are 177 members of the General Assembly. How many members of the General Assembly also serve as lobbyists? Maybe 10-15. I bet they’re mainly lawyers who register “just in case” they have conversations with other elected officials about client matters. They register to make sure there isn’t an issue. A non-cynic might actually view this as an attempt to be transparent.
I know it will never happen, but wouldn’t it be remarkable if one day, just once, a reporter actually wrote a story about the GOOD things legislators do for people?
Comment by fantasyland Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 1:18 pm
Yea. Lots of diferances between home and here
Comment by Todd Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 1:37 pm