In what sounded like an extremely lively Senate Executive Committee hearing today, the House-approved constitutional amendment to allow for the recall of public officials stalled when Sen. Donne Trotter (D-Chicago) blocked a vote on the measure.
I made my skepticism about the recall proposal known last week. Today, Crains' Greg Hinz adds his voice to those opposing the plan. In doing so, he touches on the idea of a neverending campaign cycle and points out that recall efforts would require funding from "well-financed interest groups" (a point that the Tribune's Eric Zorn has brought up as well).
Hinz also presents readers with a useful hypothetical:
Perhaps the biggest single problem with elected officials today is that they don’t so much govern as engage in an unending campaign, complete with excessive polling, frequent media stunts and sundry hot-dogging designed to capture the latest public fad. What makes you think that’s going to get any better if any pol who dares to govern for the long term rather than pontificate for a short term knows he or she is open to immediate recall?
Take, for instance, a governor who wants to raise taxes to help schools. Under today’s system, that governor gets some time to spend the money wisely and prove that the tax was worth it. But under a recall regime, whatever interest group was taxed can gin up for a recall drive the day the tax is passed.
For good reason, the United States has a representative democracy, one in which elected officials are given a reasonable, set term to do their jobs and then face the voters for judgment. The founders mistrusted direct democracy, in which the entire electorate — driven in today’s world by paid TV ads — decides everything.
Allowing recall in Illinois would boost the power of the well-financed interest groups that would pay for those TV ads and petition-signing drives, says state Rep. Kevin Joyce, D-Chicago, who was a top sponsor of the recall bill but has had a change of heart. “It allows groups that are well-financed to play a larger role in politics.”
Just what we need.
In my previous post on this issue I asked whether a recall system would benefit Illinois progressives in the long run. And if Hinz's suspicion is right -- if every bold or daring move by a governor were answered with a recall effort -- than the answer is clearly "No."
Think about it: the policies we would like to see advanced by a truly progressive statehouse -- from reforming the flat income tax to instituting single-payer health care -- represent grave threats to a variety of wealthy special interests in the state. As such, it will take an immense and well-organized effort to get such proposals approved. And if successful, the last thing we'll need is to fend off a recall battle as well.
Post new comment