Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner does bill-signing event at center which was whacked hard by impasse
Next Post: Think before you post
Posted in:
* From the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform…
To be a leader in financial disclosure for political candidates, Illinois should require the following information to be disclosed in each Statement of Economic Interest:
Names of businesses and investments with financial ties to the candidate
The amount of income a candidate received from reported entities
A list of the candidate’s professional clients, as allowed by lawNone of these reforms are unprecedented. At the federal level, and in ten states, including California and New York, candidates are already required to provide a list of assets, sources of income, and the amount received from each source. Many more states have versions of these requirements, where specifics on sources of income, but not value, are disclosed.
Additionally, the National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 15 states have laws requiring state legislators to disclose the names of individual clients when they receive income from sources beyond their state salaries.
A Chicago Tribune report from December 7th highlighted the importance of transparency in identifying state lawmakers’ potential conflicts of interest. Additionally, the State Journal-Register connected the issue of insufficient disclosure to an overall lack of robust recusal procedures for potential conflicts of interest.
Requiring these additional disclosures from candidates would make Illinois a national leader in financial transparency, for both candidates and elected officials. Additionally, detailed disclosure would become a requirement, rather than an expectation, empowering voters to make informed choices in state elections.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 12:01 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner does bill-signing event at center which was whacked hard by impasse
Next Post: Think before you post
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Good idea in theory, but I would be concerned that the income disclosure requirements would discourage some people from running in local elections. A desire to serve in a small community may be a less strong force than apprehension about sharing all of your financial information to their friends and neighbors.
Comment by Stormfield Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 12:38 pm
I think this is a good start. It might make sense for elected officials to also disclose sexual/romantic relationships with lobbyist. When elected officials vote on bills supported or opposed by a lobbyist they are involved with, without disclosure to the public, it perverts the process and is a conflict equal to having a financial interest.
Comment by slime Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 12:38 pm
Additionally, enforcement of state lobbyist registration requirements needs to improve. There are too many folks that meet the definition, but do not register, yet there is never any consequence.
Similarly, agencies rarely fill out required ex parte communication forms. It is especially problematic when legislators are pressuring regulators on procurements or licensing issues.
Thirdly, reporting of lobbyist expenditures is weakly enforced. Legislators are out every night eating dinner with lobbyists, yet much of it seems to be unreported.
Comment by slime Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 12:44 pm
“… National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 15 states have laws requiring state legislators to disclose the names of individual clients when they receive income from sources beyond their state salaries.”
I’m sure a House bill is being drafted as we speak and will move quickly to the Gov’s desk, right around the time that balance budget is passed. /s
Comment by cdog Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 12:44 pm
I think these disclosure request regarding income is crazy.
I think an elected official should show his sources of income without specifically listing the amount of income from these sources.Example “dividends from public corporations or interest from public listed bonds, etc.”
They should also list their assets excluding residences without disclosing their value. Example the name of any partnerships, real estate, etc”
The public has no right to know their actual income.
Comment by MOON Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 1:05 pm
I wonder whatever happened to the wholesale revision of the SOEI form that was pushed by Sen. Kotowski several years ago.
Comment by Original Rambler Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 2:22 pm
I work for the state as a low level Webmaster to maintain website content. I’m required to fill out one of these statement of economic interest forms every year just like the politicians. I really wish there would be a reform to make these sort of new requirements only apply to elected officials and not to random low level employees of the state. If they are going to keep the current statement of economic interest form, it would be nice if they would at least make the questions clearer and easier to understand. The university has an almost 20 page explanation of what needs to go in each line of the form and some of the things are really random/bizarre (like did you sell your personal home at a profit, did you own over a certain amount of an individual stock, did you receive any gifts from family members over $500, etc…). I suppose that I would be able to say ‘No’ or ‘Not Applicable’ to all of the proposed new questions, but it feels like more unneeded busywork and intrusions into employee’s personal lives.
Comment by Webmaster Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 6:42 pm