Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Cross: Quinn won’t pull the trigger
Next Post: Graphic of the day
Posted in:
* Patrick Collins, the chairman of the now-defunct reform commission, responds to an op-ed written by Senate President John Cullerton…
[Cullerton] has every right to defend his record on ethics reform. But in defending that record, he also denigrated the work of the Illinois Reform Commission. He claimed that portions of our proposals may have been motivated by “partisan” interests and that we did not advance actual legislation.
This is what Cullerton wrote about Collins’ first point…
As to the “legislative leader term limits” recommendation, the commission’s report fails to explain how it targets “the core of the culture of corruption” or even relates to the rampant and bipartisan corruption in the executive branch over the last decade. If anything, the “reform” idea smacks of a personal or partisan animus toward House Speaker Michael Madigan, rather than a proposal supported by evidence.
Sen. Cullerton is right that neither Collins nor the commission have yet to make a specific case for why those specific reforms are needed and why Madigan is the true bad guy in government.
Also on that topic of leadership influence, Cullerton made an interesting and valid point…
…the commission’s proposal to allow only legislative leaders to maintain additional political committees to support multiple candidates would further consolidate, not diminish, the power of legislative leaders.
Yep.
* On to the second point in Collins’ op-ed, that Cullerton wrongly claimed the commission “did not advance actual legislation.” This is what Cullerton actually wrote…
Patrick Collins is incorrect that we “outright ignored” the commission’s legislative rule-changes idea. Early in my presidency, the Senate adopted rules changes that provide members with greater ability to advance and control their own bills. In addition, I reversed the policy of my predecessors by assigning virtually every bill and amendment to a substantive committee. At no time did the commission ever propose actual language for these rule changes. As I’ve said before, the General Assembly enacts legislation, not press releases.
Cullerton is correct.
* Collins concludes with an exhortation to voters…
There’s certainly room for good-faith disagreement between Cullerton and reform advocates about whether Illinois “won big” this year. But the bar for what constitutes meaningful ethics reform will not be set in Springfield. It won’t be set by the commission members. It will be set by Illinois citizens.
Let’s hear if they think they won.
* Related…
* Cash goes to districts of Congress members directing corps funds: The states getting the most money — California, Mississippi, Illinois, Texas and Florida — all have lawmakers serving on the appropriations committees. The seven states getting no corps stimulus funding include Michigan, which has the nation’s highest unemployment rate but no members on the energy and water spending panels in either chamber.
* Illinois campaign financing has fallen down the rabbit hole
* It’s time for honesty, not sin, in Illinois
* Give UI records to commission
* U of I admission should not be based on clout, politics
* UIC med school not a pushover for clout
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 10:32 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Cross: Quinn won’t pull the trigger
Next Post: Graphic of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Cullerton ends in letter by comparing the reform enacted by the legislature to that following Watergate. Cullerton, and his colleagues in the House and Senate, would do well to remember another development that followed Watergate. The Class of 1974 brought more new faces to Congress than any in history because of the number of incumbents that were turned out. There is pent up anger growing. I hear it more than I ever have before. People are made a every level of government in Illinois (Daley’s parking meter debacle, Stroger’s ineptitude, and Blago’s corruption following my Quinn’s call for taxes and Madigan and the legisltaure playing cutesy politics).
Comment by Niles Township Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 10:42 am
Patrick Collins makes his living defending corporations from investigations of white collar crimes.
I guess that makes him an expert on corruption.
But if he’s going to demand greater transparency from lawmakers, HE needs to disclose who his law firm’s corporate clients are and what work he did for them.
All corporations have an interest in Springfield, and the only way to clear the air and lay to rest concerns that Collins has a conflict of interest and an axe to grind with lawmakers is for him to fully disclose who’s paying his tab.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 10:50 am
Patrick Collins continues to get creamed by pushing his argument that the real ethical problems in Illinois rest in the Legislative leaders, while ignoring that it’s our Governors that keep getting arrested. He can keep writing all the op-eds he wants. He will still lose this debate.
Comment by Al Swearengen Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 10:54 am
The one two punch of ethical failures and budget debacles threatens to make 2010 the worst year for incumbents since 1994. Cullerton and Madigan had better be careful about crowing over their supposed vitories. I’m not sure the voters will have the same idea.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:17 am
It’s hard to have reform when those with the real power don’t want it. Real reform would be nice. Let’s hope Patrick Collins will run for office.
Comment by Steve Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:21 am
Collins to Madigan: “From hell’s heart, I stab at thee. For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee. To the last, I will grapple with thee. ”
The fed brought down 2 govenros, and collins is all about fixing the legislature.
This guys base of knoweldge is way to outsider/theotretical. A little less ivory tower from collins would better serve his agenda.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:41 am
The bottom line: the Madigan Cabal didn’t even touch gerrymandering and going to an Iowa system, just like Collins said. Just because Collins is in an “ivory tower” doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:50 am
I am an outright cynic on political reform…any thing they come up with that even gives the appearance of genuine reform is merely a starting point for the usual suspects to begin the ritual of figuring a way around it. Its all about the appearance of reform, because true, long-lasting honesty in government has never happened and never will.
Comment by You Go Boy Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:09 pm
Quinn’s Collins Commission should have focused on the executive branch. Instead it turned into a political debate by going after the legislative branch.
That was stupid. It went beyond scope - it lost sight of it’s own mission and wandered onto the political train tracks. Don’t blame Cullerton or Madigan for flattening it.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:32 pm
–Sen. Cullerton is right that neither Collins nor the commission have yet to make a specific case for why those specific reforms are needed and why Madigan is the true bad guy in government.–
That’s it in a nutshell. You have to wonder why not. Certainly you could come up with something.
It was bizarre that the commission made all these legislative recommendations without showing how the state had been harmed under the current system.
Did this stuff originate with staff?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:07 pm
===Quinn’s Collins Commission should have focused on the executive branch. Instead it turned into a political debate by going after the legislative branch.===
Yup. We’ve had two straight governors go down for corruption. There is no epidemic of legislators and legislative leaders being exposed for official misconduct (try as we might, Mr. Daniels); the misconduct has been taking place in the City of Chicago and the executive branch.
Quinn should create a reform commission for the reform commission.
Comment by Obamarama Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:12 pm
I think Collins should have had representatives from the good government organizations on his commission. they would have supplied real world experience and legislative know- how. Examples League of Women Voters, Better Government Association, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, etc. There were alot of well intentioned people on his panel but too many of them were political/advocacy neophytes.
Here’s a reform that should be easy and would help ballot access. And easier ballot access helps reformers. Don’t know if it would require legislative action or merely administrative changes by the Boards of Election.
If the state of Illinois can supply standard forms for tax collection then it is time for the state and the city of chicago etc to supply petition forms to candidates. That would end one part of the ballot challenge system.
Comment by say no to incumbents Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:46 pm
Patrick Collins can say whatever he wants, but Illinois Senate President John Cullerton cleaned his politcal clock and sent the self-important Collins out of the Capitol whining. Would you like a little CHEESE WITH THAT WINE Pat?
Comment by Raz Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:32 pm
“I think Collins should have had representatives from the good government organizations on his commission. they would have supplied real world experience and legislative know- how. Examples League of Women Voters, Better Government Association, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, etc. There were alot of well intentioned people on his panel but too many of them were political/advocacy neophytes.”
True, but that doesn’t make him wrong. What I find amusing is that because there haven’t been a lot of indictments, many folks here seem to be saying everything is ok legislatively. It’s not. The system rewards incumbents, puts too much power in the hands of legislative leaders, and discourages small d democracy in a way that shuts down the process for many. And the general perception that you must pay (campaign contributions primarily) to play (get legislation passed) didn’t get manufactured by Collins.
The campaign finance bill is a joke full of HUGE holes and special exemptions. My favorite is that a check is no longer considered received unless it is in physical possession of the campaign treasurer. For credit card transactions, that means the contribution is never received under the new law. Don’t believe me? Ask the Board of Elections as that’s their interpretation. In short, it’s worse than nothing and that’s the kind of thing I think Collins was reacting to. He’s not wrong.
So let’s spare the sanctimony as we try to come up with better approaches to reform.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:52 pm
wordslinger: Here’s my case: the 4th Congressional district (I could go on all day but that sole obscenely drawn district is enough). Or the campaign contribution caps which are per year, not cycle, a calculated attack on every would-be challenger to an incumbent.
Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 3:34 pm
===Here’s my case: the 4th Congressional district ===
Pretty sure that was mandated by the courts.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 3:36 pm
>>
I think a “hispanic” district was mandated, but the exact drawing of the map wasn’t.
Comment by Niles Township Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 3:54 pm
I’m not sure you could draw it much differently to get that super majority.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 3:58 pm
Let’s face it, Cullerton got it right.
The Quinn Commission was mostly filled with folks who never made a campaign contribution or worked in a campaign.
The bills pased by the legislature will badly crimp those intent on “pay to play”, limit campaign cash entering the system, force immediate disclosure, open ethics commission actions and perhaps most importantly put strong/binding public access monitor in place.
Given the record on wrongful prosecutions there was little interest in Wild West wiretappers. The 2012 election map is still under review.
Some can dismiss, but the remarks don’t stand up to a good search.
Comment by Reddbyrd Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 4:42 pm
Reddbyrd, I don’t think you’ve read the bill if you believe that. Other than the public access counselor about which you’re right, the bills passed by the legislature will not limit campaign cash and do not require immediate disclosure. Read the bill. It’s good for a laugh.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 5:29 pm
I think the whole has run its course. It seems to all over but the posturing at this point.
Comment by Anon3 Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 5:53 pm
===the bills passed by the legislature will not limit campaign cash===
The campaign finance bill (HB7) actually does limit campaign contributions as well as committee transfers. It has no limits, however, on independent expenditures.
Comment by Obamarama Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 5:54 pm
CC:
Nope I had it right.
There are limits on the cash coming into the system.
The disclosure happens more rapidly
Both are significant. As is the public access counsel. I know it is hard for anyone to come to grips with reality. But it is what it is and no amount of comment can change what actually was passed in the House and Senate.
Please understand that the limits accomplish very little. Limits will require most candidates and officials, who are honest, to spend more time raising money.
The crooks will still be the crooks. but most of their hiding places are gone.
The critics merely reveal how little the know or understand what has happened in Illinois.
Comment by Reddbyrd Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 5:56 pm
“Raz - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:32 pm:
Patrick Collins can say whatever he wants, but Illinois Senate President John Cullerton cleaned his politcal clock and sent the self-important Collins out of the Capitol whining. Would you like a little CHEESE WITH THAT WINE Pat? ”
Whining! Whining! Collins was crying.What baby!
Comment by Chicago Guy Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 8:40 am
RedByrd,
Just to close the loop, the limits are a joke. Not because of their dollar amount, but because of the loopholes. A couple of easy ones: instead of one campaign committee, incumbents now can have three including a bizarre one called constituent service committee. They also get to raise money per calendar year instead of per election cycle. That means incumbents get an extra year or three of fundraising over challengers. Include the extra committees and you have increased the advantages for incumbents.
Second is that party committees still have no limits. Wait you may say, yes they do have limits - I see it in the bill. Well, since party committees usually pay for things like mailers and ads and since those “in-kind” contributions are unlimited, there are no limits. Finally, anyone in a race where someone has put in 250,000 is subject to no limits. That happens all the time and by non-millionaires. Given the average home price in Chicago is upwards of 300,000, 250,000 is akin to a basic second mortgage which many candidates (not just millionaires) take out when they run. Also, since the 250 can be in the form of a loan, a candidate can make a self-loan to evade limits, keep the loan open so he can collect unlimited checks and then repay at the end.
In short, the limits are a joke which is why every major reform group opposes the bill.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 9:03 am