Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Offered without comment
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
[Bumped up to today because I posted this late yesterday afternoon.]
* The Legislature’s Inspector General turns up the heat…
Lobbying by Illinois lawmakers would be barred under a bill proposed by the Legislature’s inspector general, who monitors ethical conduct by state representatives and senators.
“Legislators should not be allowed to be paid to lobby on behalf of clients before any public body,” said the inspector general, Thomas J. Homer, who plans to introduce the bill within the next two weeks. […]
A spokeswoman for John Cullerton, the Senate president, who has registered in the past as a lobbyist, said that for now, Homer’s proposals are a matter for the Legislative Ethics Commission to consider.
“If legislation is filed, we will fully review the issues and implications of legislative action on this topic,” said the spokeswoman, Rikeesha Phelon.
Steve Brown, a spokesman for Michael Madigan, the House speaker, said Madigan would need to see the legislation before deciding whether to support it. “There are other provisions in state law that protected the public from wrongdoing, and that’s the goal here,” Brown said.
* There are just a tiny number of people who are doing this. The Chicago law is strict enough that much aldermanic contact can be considered lobbying, including doing zoning work. But an earlier report showed how the practice can be over the line…
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.
Rep. Burke registered as a lobbyist for the roofing contractors in April of 2005, just two months after he sponsored their bill.
Not good.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 18, 12 @ 1:03 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Offered without comment
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Kudos to you, Mr. Homer.
Our distinguished legislators are fully capable of finding other sources of income during their tenure.
Assuming, that is, they’re 1/10 as great as they constantly tell us they are.
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 4:16 pm
It is a shame that there are elected officials who are also paid lobbyists for other interests. When someone becomes an elected offical, they are supposed to be a paid lobbyist for the people who elected them.
Comment by Former Politico Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 5:17 pm
Since when can the inspector general introduce a bill? A suggestion maybe? It will never come to a vote anywhere….
Comment by Liberty First Wednesday, Jan 18, 12 @ 1:39 am
Why aren’t we talking about Madigan here? Oh, he never registered as a lobbyist? I believe he serves several special-interest groups, especially when he has investment in the “special-interest”.
Comment by tomhail Wednesday, Jan 18, 12 @ 7:42 am
What are the ethics of Homer earning a legislative pension, a judicial pension and being paid by taxpayers to oversee corruption in Illinois politics?
Homer was in the Legislature for years and did nothing about this issue. How self-serving can one man be?
Comment by nickname Wednesday, Jan 18, 12 @ 8:40 am
Good luck Mr. Homer,but I don’t think Madigan or
Cullerton will do a darn thing wtih the bill.
Comment by mokenavince Wednesday, Jan 18, 12 @ 10:10 am
I’m fine with somebody/anybody introducing and advocating for this bill, but I’m a bit uneasy that it’s the IG that’s doing it. We’ve given these various IG’s the power to be judge and jury, which is a dangerous amount of power. Letting them be judge, jury AND crusader/advocate is going too far in my opinion. I’d prefer the IG’s execute the role of their office without a personal agenda and if they’d rather be an advocate then they should give up their post and switch roles.
I don’t care for the precedent this is setting.
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Jan 18, 12 @ 10:32 am
And what do you do about legislator/lawyers? Is a legislator that represents clients, often before other public bodies/agencies, somehow less threatening to the public welfare? What about legislators that own businesses? Should they be barred from selling goods and services to other public bodies? Are these transactions in material way different than assisting a client (lobbying) gain the attention of another public body? I’m open to persuasion, but if you’re not a paid, full-time legislator, why should your economic liberty be limited in this fashion without any significant advancement in public ethics?
Comment by Lycurgus Wednesday, Jan 18, 12 @ 11:56 am
Provided that “lobbying” is defined clearly and narrowly enough, this bill would be a positive step. If very few legislators are doing this, which I believe, then any negative impact would be offset by gains in public trust.
As for ideas for improvement in governance, or efficiency for that matter, we should encourage ideas from anyone. Often those closest to processes have the knowledge to propose the best reforms.
Comment by mark walker Wednesday, Jan 18, 12 @ 1:04 pm