Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Hug analysis
Posted in:
[Bumped up and updated to facilitate discussion.]
* More of that “Rewrite to Do Right” magic…
Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose administration is under federal scrutiny for allegedly trading state jobs for campaign contributions, proposed a ban Friday on political cash from anyone holding a government job.
Blagojevich used amendatory veto authority on innocuous campaign-finance legislation and suggested barring contributions to any state officeholder—from governor to legislators—by any public employee, from local librarians to the director of state prisons. […]
The measure appears difficult to police. Currently, election law requires candidates to disclose the occupation and employer of contributors giving $500 or more. Blagojevich’s proposal mentions no minimum contribution and carries a $10,000 penalty for violations.
“You have to know who all these municipal employees are,” said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “If I work in the clerk’s office in Peotone and I send in $25, if they receive it, they can have a penalty up to $10,000.”
* Apparently, the governor’s office doesn’t have huge hopes for this AV…
Deputy Gov. Bob Greenlee said the governor proposed the blanket ban on employee donations to ensure employees don’t feel pressure to donate in order to keep their jobs or keep their bosses happy. Employee donations were part of the corruption that plagued former Republican Gov. George Ryan’s administration when he was secretary of state.
Greenlee said the veto was used to get lawmakers to take the idea more seriously, but the administration will continue working on the proposal if the legislature doesn’t approve it now.
“Part of it is we’re raising the issue for discussion,” he said. “We can continue through the process.”Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, credited the administration for bringing the idea to the forefront but said she has real questions about the proposed ban.
She said barring state officials from taking donations from thousands of state and local employees could be a logistical nightmare in tracking donors’ employers. She also said the pressure to donate isn’t apparent when local government employees give money to their legislators or the comptroller, for example.
“I think the governor is really overstretching here,” Canary said. “There are better ways to approach it.”
* And the Daily Illini is having none of it…
The governor can call his actions “Rewrite to do Right” or whatever else he wants. To many Illinoisians, it’s obvious what it should really be called: “Abuse of Power.”
* And then there’s the ban on “double dippers” that the governor wrote into a bill last week…
Blagojevich, however, isn’t proposing an outright ban on the practice. Lawmakers who have other government jobs as elected officials, state university professors, police officers or firefighters could continue to hold those jobs.
That would mean only half of the 20 lawmakers who have two government jobs would be forced to leave one of them, a Chicago Sun-Times analysis shows (see graphic).
Nine of the 10 legislators who would be forced to quit a job are House Democrats — a statistic that has prompting lawmakers in both parties to accuse the governor of using the double-dip issue to exact political revenge. House Democrats have staunchly opposed the governor’s legislative priorities this year, even though they’re in the same political party as Blagojevich.
“The governor had no problem with us having these jobs before this year,” said Rep. Susana Mendoza (D-Chicago), an employee of Chicago’s Planning Department. “It’s obvious he’s targeting us out of spite.”
Legislators also are taking issue with Blagojevich’s semantics, contending they can’t technically double-dip because Illinois law prohibits them from being paid more than once by a public body during the same hour.
* Related…
* Q&A: Ethics bill awaits legislature’s action
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:00 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Hug analysis
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I suspect this is (at least partly) designed to keep legions of disgruntled state employees from giving their money to any potential opponent of his.
If such a ban were approved, I also suspect it would be only selectively enforced.
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:13 am
I think it is a great idea. It will cripple the democrats if everyone on the goverment payroll cannot donate. Not because the republicans are better, but just because the democrats are in office and have more people on the payroll right now. If you take away the ability for any government employee to make a donation, most of the democrat base is gone. Does this include PACs and unions? No more AFCME me money or IEA/NEA money for the dems.
Comment by the Patriot Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:15 am
I do not know about the other constitutional officers, but since she took office in 03 Lisa Madigan has banned her employees from contributing to her campaign. They are free to contribute to others they do not work for.
This looks like more empty Rhetoric from the Gov. If the Gov though this was cirtical he could have banned it himself for his staff and agencies at anytime over the years he has been in office. It would appear that the Gov is unwilling to be like either madigan and set voluntary limits that are greater then required by the law. The Gov is determined to take the position that he will do it until its made illegal, or until it is banned for all. If he was a true reformer he would lead by example, ban and limit his own ofice, and then push for limits tobe placed on a broader base of elected officials. Instead he shoots for a broad ban or nothing, while conducting his own business on the edge of the law, instead of what is right. This is why LMadigan is “ethical” whereas the Gov is just compliant with the loop holes in the law.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:17 am
There’s a reasons he’s known as Blah-blah-blah-Blagojevich. This AV is just another in a Great Walll of China-sized list.
Comment by Fan of the Game Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:19 am
Banning contributions from one’s OWN employees is one thing. It makes sense because it prevents a state employee from being pressured or forced to give to the boss’ campaign. Banning all employees from giving to the campaign of ANY state official — even those for whom they do not work — goes way too far.
And by the way, Patriot, if you think this is such a “great idea” because it would decimate the Democratic patronage army, what about the legions of LOCAL officials — village presidents, county clerks, etc. — many of whom are downstate Republicans, who would also be forbidden to donate to GOP legislators or officeholders? If Republicans ever get back any of the statewide offices, I suppose then you will be all for repealing the rule.
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:29 am
Is Blagojevich willing to extend the ban to school board candidates?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:35 am
But what does it solve? While looking all ethical and pretty on page, what’s to stop the donations? If employee x is banned, employee x’s family might donate.
Comment by Princeville Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:37 am
Blago readily and proudly admitted that he got a ‘C’ in Constitutional Law while in law school. This AV, once again, proves that he doesn’t understand the basics, like freedom of speech.
Comment by SangamoGOP Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:41 am
Ghost - The Governor doesn’t accept contributions from state employees. It is my understanding that none of the constitutionals do.
Hence the statement that it puts in place policies that many have adopted voluntarily…
Comment by pro Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 9:00 am
And when I say this rule would be “selectively enforced,” I mean that since it would be nearly impossible to make a sustained effort to enforce it against ALL potential violations (see Cindi Canary’s remarks), enforcement would probably occur only if someone filed a complaint. Such complaints would then become a convienient club to hold over the head of anyone whom the governor or another officeholder didn’t like.
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 9:03 am
I doubt if it’s constitutional. Too broad.
Since the Rezco verdict and the exit of his former top aides, Blago has been quite a bit more engaged. I don’t know that there’s any grand strategy other than to hit back.
Some punches land, some don’t. But it’s not really governing.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 9:05 am
An ethical public official would ensure that there is a ban on contributions from his own employees.
An unethical public official would deliberately gum up ethics bills so that they would fail to pass, then finger point at those who voted it down, while claiming to be ethical.
Ethical public officials do more than say words, while unethical ones have nothing but words.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 9:12 am
Pro, your kidding right? The Gov took contributions from a number of people who were provided jobs on various State boards. Then there is the friend who made a large donation and the wife landed a job shortly thereafter.
Asking for the money before the first day of work does not equate to rejecting money from employees. Blago has taken money from many people who ended up with State jobs. In some instances the location of the job was moved to a small county to avoid application of the veterans preference rules, but the work location for the job was in a county where veterans should have recieved the job had it been identified as being located in that county.
The Gov has not rejected money from employees, he has demanded it.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 9:14 am
The Gov. would impress me if he banned state workers from working on his campaign. Their contribution in time is worth more than money can buy. (He would have to make the ban extend 6-months after they leave state employment.)
I imagine that all those state parks and historic sites slated for closure could remain open if the Governor instead laid off his people planted in the DNR awaiting the next election.
Side note: Why does this leeching rarely get covered by the media? Especially when the Governor claims the State is out of money?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 9:26 am
I like the ban. Since when are we worried about semantics in this state?
The overall ehtics problems and abuses of power in Illinois give Blago the opening to do this. I don’t care if Lisa Madigan, Alexi, Dan Hynes, etc. have already “taken action” because there is nothing stopping their employees from donating plenty of money to other candidates.
In Illinois, political contributions buy attention, favors and (sometimes) assistance. Call me cynical, but they do. I’m quite sure a local county treasurer candidate will survive if some prison guards cannot give him or her $50.
Of course, this will probably be tied up in court by some interest group or union. Can anyone do anything in this state without a lawsuit or injunction being filed?
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 9:42 am
==“Part of it is we’re raising the issue for discussion,” (Greenlee) said. “We can continue through the process.”==
This just galls me more than high humidity. Wouldn’t a more proper time to ‘raise issues for discussion’ be while the bill is being debated among the GA? If Fritchey and MJM hug would that automatically start impeachment proceedings?
Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 9:46 am
I think we all understand that the amendatory veto on the ethics bill was intended as “poison pill” so that that Governor Pinocchio can appear to be supporting ethics reform that he really opposes - not to mention payback to enemies and potential rivals.
Comment by Captain America Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 10:04 am
I’m repeatedly frustrated by reporters that write about legislation and don’t include the bill number. It’s 8 characters at most, why is it not part of the standard style sheet for writers?
Comment by Scooby Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 10:09 am
Secret, that is why I added the line about, Repubs not being any better. If you really look, the number of counties controlled by republicans is really few and far between right now. I do concede that in Republican areas, it would bite them as well. But the fact is the state payroll has been bloated with democrats in the last 6 years so they would be hardest hit in this election cycle.
Besides if all public employees including the PACs and unions, the democrats take a mucha harder hit the republicans.
Comment by the Patriot Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 10:18 am
“I’m quite sure a local county treasurer candidate will survive if some prison guards cannot give him or her $50.”
You might want to ask the Livingston County clerk that question (since Pontiac Prison is in that county and employs hundreds of people there) before you jump to any conclusions.
In towns where a state or local government entity is the biggest employer, a substantial chunk of the local population would be disenfranchised. Which also makes me suspect this is yet another slap at Sangamon County (and its 17,000 state employees) for only giving Blago 21 percent of the vote last time.
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 10:35 am
Two words describe the governor’s action:
POISON PILL
Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 11:24 am
Patriot, the IEA/NEA contributes to Republicans as well as Democrats. They have been bipartisan since the early 1990’s. I served on their IPACE Executive Committee in the ’90’s.
Comment by Nearly Normal Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 12:28 pm
===Two words describe the governor’s action:
POISON PILL ===
But rewrite to do right is so catchy.
Comment by Kevin Fanning Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 1:14 pm
I used to think that those who claimed the gov was trying to poison the jury pool with actions like the ethics rewrite were a little touched in the head. Not so sure any more.
Comment by Leave a light on George Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 1:18 pm
while we’re at it, can employees who leave one government job and get a pension NOT be able to go on contract or go to
another job and get a salary and a pension.
ex chicago police officer on the CPD payroll on contract, ex CPD officer on Chicago payroll, ex City of Chicago employees moving over to the CTA. it’s not right.
Comment by Amy Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 4:18 pm
The big question is: Are there any state employees who WANT to give their hard-earned money to the governor or any other politicians.
I think they are few and far between. Since the going rate seems to be $25K, how many state employees have that lying around, waiting for the guv’s next fundraiser?
Comment by Disgusted Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 5:22 pm
Banning cash from government employees is just for show. The 25k’s will still keep rolling in from those SEEKING government employment.
Comment by Cornerfield Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:01 pm