Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Nekritz: Pension reform after election
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: This just in…
Posted in:
* Bernie interviewed a retiring lobbyist the other day…
David Sykuta has been around the Illinois General Assembly for a long time, and he doesn’t like what he sees.
Sykuta, 62, of Springfield, is retiring at the end of the year as executive director of the Illinois Petroleum Council. He’s been with the organization, which represents large oil refiners, marketers and transporters, since 1976 and has been executive director since 1986. He began legislative work in 1973 as an intern with Sente Democrats, but switched to Senate GOP staff until joining the council.
He’s not the first to say this, but what he’s seen over time is a concentration of power in leadership.
“They’re still fine people,” he said of lawmakers, “but I think the system has just become tilted way too much toward leadership power. I have a problem with a system that can allow leadership on either side to just replace all the members of the committee if they don’t like the outcome. … It takes on a lot of aspects of the Politburo. … And this is how we’ve ended up where we are right now fiscally.
“I always thought one person could make a difference,” Sykuta said. “I still feel that way, but not so much, just because the power of the leadership is so strong on both sides.
Whenever I’ve been asked what one reform I would make to the General Assembly I almost always say I’d forbid the leaders from appointing committee chairmen and committee members and make the staff beholden to the committees rather than the leaders. Right now, the entire process is so tightly controlled by leadership that they can basically do anything they want. A stronger committee structure would devolve some power away from the top.
* Meanwhile, the State Journal-Register editorialized in favor of removing caps on contributions when outside independent expenditures reach $250,000 in statewide campaigns and $100,000 in other campaigns…
The reform groups that worked hard to get the current limits onto the books are not pleased about this. That’s understandable.
“Gov. Quinn’s signature on this bill has carved a large loophole into the campaign contribution limits law,” said Brian Gladstein, executive director of the watchdog group Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “He has made it easier for large campaign contributors to buy political favors.”
This is how candidates like Rod Blagojevich end up on the phone discussing how to squeeze $100,000 from a donor in exchange for signing a bill beneficial to said donor. Luckily for Illinois, the FBI was listening when Blagojevich did exactly that in 2008. And really, who would be more prone to tacitly offer favors in exchange for heavy contributions than a candidate running in a panic from a powerful super PAC?
But there’s a fairness aspect to this that we can’t overlook. Set upon by a hostile, well-heeled independent expenditure PAC intent on a candidate’s defeat, it hardly seems fair that the targeted candidate must abide by limits that don’t apply to the entity intent on his or her defeat.
I couldn’t agree more. The reformers have yet to counter this fairness aspect with a valid argument. They’re simply living in the past.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 10:59 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Nekritz: Pension reform after election
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: This just in…
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Even though he’s been around awhile, does that necessarily mean he’s a crustacean?
Comment by Tommydanger Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 11:13 am
Dave’s right. Leaders have way too much power. They should do away with leadership PACs or severely limt the amount of money that leaders can give to members. Make them raise the money and win on their own. Then maybe we will have some independent thinkers down here.
Comment by Jaded Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 11:26 am
I wonder, too, if it’s a function of the current spreads among the parties in the two chambers.
When Phil Rock had a 31-29 majority in the Senate, he couldn’t be an all-powerful leader because Pate could at times pick off a few Dem senators here and there on contentious issues.
Rock couldn’t retaliate because he’d need those senators on other issues.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 11:39 am
Dave Sykuta is a good man. I believe his analysis is spot on. Best of luck to him in his retirement.
Comment by Stones Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 11:47 am
“I have a problem with a system that can allow leadership on either side to just replace all the members of the committee if they don’t like the outcome”
I’ll hold my tongue and just quietly snicker about an oil lobbyist complaining another entity has too much power and access. But what does he mean by replacing members? Does he mean leadership will permanently take members off a committee if they don’t vote the right way? Because I don’t know of a case where that has happened. Does he mean the regular process of substitution or moving bills to favorable committees, because that’s just part of keeping things moving forward in the GA.
Comment by L.S. Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 11:54 am
What about abolishing the cutback amendment?
Comment by Highland, Il Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:02 pm
So the lobster thinks the leaders are too powerful, but who exactly does he want to see get more power?
The voters… or the special interests unaccountable to voters?
Because I don’t think the voters are automatically getting more powerful the weaker that leadership gets.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:14 pm
=== forbid the leaders from appointing committee chairmen and committee members and make the staff beholden to the committees rather than the leaders ===
Excellent idea. Big, big fan of this one regardless of which party controls the legislative bodies.
Comment by Freeman Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:15 pm
He’s dead on with the assessment. Bills get assigned to committee, people work roll calls, and then the leaders substitute members at the last minute to either pass or kill the bill. I liked the Senate when they didn’t allow substitutions.
Comment by 1776 Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:20 pm
Sykuta’s correct. One person still can make a difference - as long as that one person is named Michael J. Madigan.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 1:00 pm
So what’s the alternative? How would the committees be organized?
Comment by Yossarian Lives Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 1:01 pm
Sykuta (Scooter) nailed it. You will be missed, but don’t shy away from speaking up, we love your commentary.
Comment by Big Red Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 2:04 pm
I’d love to see one committee deadline week where staff was not allowed to substitute members. That would be a lot of fun to watch every statehouse lobster all call their clients at once to explain why their bill is stuck.
Comment by L.S. Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 2:50 pm