Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: Illinois would lose about $122 million without Powerball and Mega Millions
Posted in:
* Chris Kennedy…
Chris believes it's time for a level playing field. pic.twitter.com/dcBqy6yPvi
— Chris Kennedy (@KennedyforIL) June 16, 2017
* The Question: Setting campaign politics aside, is this a good policy idea? Click here to take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 2:58 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: Illinois would lose about $122 million without Powerball and Mega Millions
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes, it’s good public policy.
Perhaps better public policy; elected officials should not be able to act as paid lobbyists for other levels of government. State reps lobbying city councils, county commissioners lobbying states reps … it’s gross.
Comment by PJ Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:05 pm
No. Once you start down the road of banning certain professions, or in this case, a specific area of practice within a profession, it’s hard to know where to draw the line. How about insurance brokers too? That’s an easy way for an elected official to profit from influence peddling.
Why not simply ban outside income? That would have the advantage of being fair.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:08 pm
No, it is not good policy. You can’t ban someone from running for office because of their career, nor can you ban someone from choosing a particular career simply because they have run for office. My firm belief is that a court would ultimately find this to be unconstitutional. And, if you were required to think of the most likely group of people to test that theory, it would be a lawyer. This is one long, expensive lawsuit the state can avoid.
Comment by Back to the Mountains Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:10 pm
It isn’t the governor’s job to decide who is an acceptable representative of a district, what professions they should have, nor how long they should serve for that matter. That is the job of the electorate.
Comment by Harvest76 Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:12 pm
Theoretically, our representatives should act in the people’s best interest regardless of other employment. Naive yes, I know but still. We almost have to make that assumption, unless you ban members of the GA from having any other job. Or do you not care that a doctor passes a law affecting healthcare, or that a business owner passes regulations about his/her field. I don’t know that we need to single out property tax lawyers.
Comment by Perrid Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:12 pm
No. It starts us down a slippery slope of deciding what professions are allowed and not allowed to run for office. Perhaps a better approach would be to further define what is considered conflict of interest.
Comment by SOIL M Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:13 pm
Yes. Insofar as they’re banned from practicing in this area while serving. The conflicts aren’t just obvious, we have several “case studies” here.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:14 pm
Sounds nice, but cuts against the well-established principle of a client being able to hire the attorney of their choice. Placing restrictions on what work a lawyer may take on (absent a direct conflict such as working both sides of the same case) is subject to court scrutiny.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:20 pm
I’m not against it in concept, but how in the world would you define and enforce it?
Comment by Dirty Red Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:22 pm
A reluctant no…
Think 47th is onto something with it being a full-time job.
Comment by Oneman Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:26 pm
–Yes. Insofar as they’re banned from practicing in this area while serving.–
Yeah, it would be a little bit extreme to bar someone from practicing their profession when they’re not serving in the legislature.
You can’t do it, unless you’re going to mandate full-time legislators and no outside professions. Every profession has potential conflicts when you’re creating laws.
St. Patrick of Fitzgerald was U.S. attorney for two years. He had the ways, means and time to take down two governors. I’m guessing he took a good long look at Madigan.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:29 pm
The appeals process was created to offset the problems with an inherently subjective tax system. That process has been shown to be inadequate.
Taking elected officials out of the process is a good first step.
I have posted before that I think the legislators should be paid large sums ($250,000 per year with no pension or medical) but banned from outside employment. If your legislator, who is spending about $36 billion a year, is not worth the pay, vote in someone who is worth it.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:38 pm
I don’t think this is possible to do. The Supreme Court regulates the practice of law, so you can’t tell lawyers they can’t run for office. The Illinois Constitution sets out the criteria for executive and legislative officers, as well as some local officers.
Comment by Whatthewhat Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:40 pm
I assume Kennedy is talking about appealing assessments, not appealing property taxes. He seems to constantly be confusing the two. I wasn’t even aware there is an avenue to appeal one’s property taxes?
Comment by Joe M Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:47 pm
Bad public policy, and Kennedy conceniently ignores a much bigger potential conflict: Real estate deals themselves.
Hundreds of billions changing hands every year. Much of it, as highlighted in the Thompson Center deal, can be greatly impacted by zoning decisions. Most of it, because it doesn’t happen at the Chicago City Council, receives very little sunlight from the media.
Further proof of how desperate and out of touch Kennedy is.
Comment by Free Set of Steak Knives Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 3:49 pm
So, he will, will he? By executive order? Sounds like he needs a remedial civics lesson…only the G.A.has that power.
Comment by wondering Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 4:00 pm
Obviously its a gimmicky distraction from bigger issues, but who cares… the voters will like it… and Kennedy knows it.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 4:02 pm
I voted “no”. I don’t see how you can ban anything for an elected official. If he/she meets the constitutional requirement they can run. Also as previously posted lots off people in insurance business got rich while in elective office.
I think there is going to have to be one heck of a constitutional convention because graduated income tax term limits redistricting outside jobs pensions all seem to be constitutional matters
Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 4:05 pm
Good talking point maybe. But likely not legal. What other occupations will electeds be banned from?
Comment by Signal and Noise Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 4:35 pm
== think there is going to have to be one heck of a constitutional convention because graduated income tax term limits redistricting outside jobs pensions all seem to be constitutional matters ==
No need for a Con-Con. If the GA would propose and pass it, each of those topics could be dealt with by presenting individual amendments to the voters at a general election.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 16, 17 @ 4:37 pm