Ethics

Ethics Committee: Burris' Actions "Reflected Unfavorably On The Senate"

Josh Kalven — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:20:03 -0800

This just out from Sen. Roland Burris' office:

After months of investigation into the circumstances surrounding the appointment and seating of Senator Roland W. Burris, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has closed its inquiry and cleared the Senator of any legal wrongdoing.

In a ‘public letter of qualified admonition,’ the Senate Ethics Committee outlined the specific areas of concern that it investigated, and conclusively found no “actionable violations of the law” occurred. [...]

“I am pleased that after numerous investigations, this matter has finally come to a close. I thank the members of the Senate Ethics Committee for their fair and thorough review of this matter, and now look forward to continuing the important work ahead on behalf of the people of Illinois,” said Senator Burris.

The ethics committee is yet to post the full "public letter," but we'll have more updates on their findings once it's released.

UPDATE (10:30 a.m.): And the letter is now available. While declining to take any action against Burris, the committee still had some pretty harsh words regarding his activities and public statements prior to being sworn-in as Barack Obama's U.S. Senate replacement:

The Committee found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading, or incomplete information to the public, the Senate, and those conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate. The Committee also found that your November 13, 2008 phone call with Robert Blagojevich was inappropriate. Although some of those events happened before you were sworn in as a U.S. Senator, they were inextricably linked to your appointment and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of this committee.

While the Committee did not find that the evidence before it supported any actionable violations fo the law, Senators must meet a much higher standard of conduct. [...]

Again, the Committee has found that your actions and statements reflected unfavorably on the Senate and issues this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition.

Read the whole thing below:

Preckwinkle Blasts Stroger For Hiring Problems

Adam Doster — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:08:19 -0700

Cook County Board President Todd Stroger is not having a very good week. On Monday, court-appointed hiring watchdog Mary Robinson released a new report which found that the Stroger administration is violating its own anti-patronage policies by giving favored applicants a leg up. (Specific practices include: providing test answers, waiving interview requirements, and ignoring criminal backgrounds.) Things got worse last night, when Cook County prosecutors subpoenaed some county financial records. What started as a probe into Stroger's controversial hiring of Tony Cole has apparently widened into what the Tribune is calling "questions about how the administration spent money and accounted for it."

As we wrote yesterday, reform in Cook County must begin at the top. To that end, board president candidate Toni Preckwinkle quickly released a statement this morning blasting Stroger and outlining how she would change the business of hiring if elected:

"Cook County government and its hiring process lack both transparency and accountability. Too often, county positions are not filled by the most qualified candidates, but by the most politically connected ones. Political influence in the hiring process has obstructed the efficiency of County government and strained the morale of County employees," said Preckwinkle. A candidate for Cook County Board President, Alderman Toni Preckwinkle (4th) has been vocal on the need to institute transparency and legitimacy in Cook County's hiring process, including all Shakman-exempt positions. [...]

"As Cook County Board President, I would work closely with hiring monitor Mary Robinson to ensure that policy practices are in place to prevent subversions of the decree." said Toni Preckwinkle. "Additionally, I will examine the hiring records over the last four years to determine if the Shakman decree has been honored."

As far as we know, none of the other Democratic candidates have statements out yet, but it is encouraging to see Preckwinkle take the lead.

Campaign Finance Reform: Part Two

Adam Doster — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:40:55 -0700

As expected, Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed HB 7 this afternoon, the campaign finance bill the General Assembly passed this May. While Quinn testified in favor of the bill earlier in the year, even calling it "historic," he emphasized today that he always considered the bill imperfect. After good government groups, editorial boards, and other lawmakers aired out the legislation's major deficiencies, Quinn says October's veto session presents an opportunity for lawmakers to "go back and do it right."

All four legislative leaders attended the press conference and praised the governor's decision, but none provided specific examples of what portions of the law they'd like to see improved. Senate President John Cullerton came the closest, explaining that he and Sen. Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) have been talking with the CHANGE coalition (who endorsed the veto) about how best to close the loopholes on campaign contribution limits and enforcement. But Cullerton hedged on the details, telling the reporters that "I don't think we should negotiate here."

What's wrong with the bill? Plenty. Our post in May ran down many of the major problems, the most egregious being that contributions would be capped on an annual basis rather than by election cycle. Also, HB 7 did nothing to prohibit in-kind contributions by leadership committees and state parties. For more, check out the detailed series of criticisms over at the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform's blog.

Another concern of some unions and advocacy organizations that hasn't received as much attention is the bill's definition of "natural person." As written currently, the term seems to refer to individual donors. That could be important because HB 7 prohibits Section 527 organizations or PACs from running an independently-funded campaign but places no similar limits on wealthy individuals.

We will be sure to follow the negotiations as they unfold.

Quinn Describes Loophole-Ridden Campaign Finance Bill As "Historic"

Adam Doster — Fri, 29 May 2009 10:14:24 -0700

After one gubernatorial impeachment and months of negotiation, the Illinois Senate voted yesterday to limit some contributions to political candidates as part of a campaign-finance overhaul. Clearing the Senate by a 36-22 margin, largely along party lines, HB 7 is the first bill in state history to cap the amount of money political candidates can receive. Appearing before a House committee this morning, Quinn described the proposal as "historic." But many of those pushing for campaign finance reform -- including the governor's own reform commission -- have pointed out the abundant loopholes.

The Sun-Times blasted the bill, saying that what the Senate "delivered, in reality, was squat." David Morrison, deputy director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, told the Tribune that "any 2nd grader could figure out a way around" the restrictions. But as the quote above indicates, Quinn seems ready to sign the bill.

Here's a brief run-down of the details. Keep in mind that the contribution limits don't go into effect until January of 2011, after the next campaign cycle has concluded:

Contributions to candidates: A single candidate can only accept 5,000 from an individual, $10,000 from a labor union, association, or corporation, and $90,000 from state party and legislative leader political action committees (PAC). These caps are much higher than the reform commission recommended. The bill also caps contributions on an annual basis rather than by four-year election cycles, which seriously favors incumbents.

Contributions to PACs: A multi-candidate committee or PACs can only accept $10,000 from an individual and $20,000 from a union or corporation. This could dramatically hinder the ability of PACs to raise funds because they're largely dependent on corporations or wealthy donors.

In-kind contributions: These service or goods-based contributions will also be counted as monetary donations when provided by a PAC. However, they will not be subject to caps when contributed by leadership committees and state parties, essentially gutting the $90,000 cap listed above.

Constituent Services Committees: Strangely, the bill allows for the creation of "constituent service" committees, which the Journal-Register says will "collect funds to help pay for operating lawmakers' district offices." As Capitol Fax remarks, "those committees appear ripe for potential abuse."

Filing schedule: State political committees must report to Board of Elections quarterly as opposed to semi-annually. The timely filing period is extended from 30 to 60 days, meaning that in the two months leading up to an election, a candidate is required to report a donation within two days (and must now do so electronically). If a statewide candidate drops $250,000 in personal funds into his or her warchest, the campaign must notify the state within one day. (The caps on their competitor will be loosened as well.)

Primary endorsements: The bill also includes a provision prohibiting the state party from endorsing particular candidates in primaries, meaning Speaker Michael Madigan can't influence the gubenatorial primary next year (in which his daughter Lisa may be a candidate).

The short version: While the bill improves the frequency of disclosure and may dampen the amount PACs can raise, the caps will have little effect on individual campaigns, particularly considering that party leaders can still provide unlimited in-kind contributions. It also creates some questionable new vehicles for political activity. All in all, it's a disappointing result for those hoping to limit the power of special interests in the legislative process

Spilling Ink: Watered Down Reforms Won't Cut It

Angela Caputo — Fri, 22 May 2009 10:15:50 -0700

Word out of Springfield this morning is that Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) has pulled a series of ethics measures from today's docket. The apparent reason, according to the Tribune: Republican lawmakers "offered to pick up recommendations from Quinn's reform panel that were at odds with what Democratic legislative leaders had proposed." Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno -- who sponsored a $10,000 cap earlier this session -- has reportedly signed on to a bill to limit campaign contributions at $2,400, as the reform commission recommended.

Cullerton's move also comes as numerous editorial pages rejected the idea that the Senate Democrats' watered-down Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) amendment, weak campaign contribution caps, and rejection of legislative pay raises amount to real reform.

Below is a sampling of editorial opinion from across the state.

From the Tribune:

[O]n Wednesday, we got a good look at what the rest of this "significant and far-reaching reform package" might look like. It is, in a word, appalling ...

There are a lot of excellent reform proposals in the hopper, but the session is winding down and most of them seem to be getting worse instead of better.

So when lawmakers boast about passing a law to end passive pay raises, it's important to recognize the gesture for what it is: They're throwing you a bone. Make sure you let them know you want more, much more, or you won't get it.

They're not looking out for you, they're looking out for themselves.

The Sun-Times editorial board takes on the Senate Democrats' plan to limit indvidual campaign contributions to $5,000 per calendar year and insitutional contributions to $10,000:

Madigan, Cullerton, et al, have decided they might be willing to enact campaign contribution limits on individuals, businesses and unions -- but limits that are so high and generous they would be virtually meaningless. And, of course, Madigan, Cullerton, et al, show absolutely no willingness to limit their own ability to shower money on their fellow politicians.

In short, under the ruse of reform, our state's political leaders -- especially Madigan and Cullerton -- would effectively increase their own power by marginally reining in campaign contributions by everybody else, except themselves.

Nifty trick, no?

The Peoria Journal Star focuses on the big loophole in the Senate plan: unrestricted transfers from the legislative leaders' hefty campaign accounts:

[U]ltimately any progress here is undone with no ceilings being imposed on the largesse of legislative leaders, and might be a step backward. If you believe as we do that the speaker of the House and the Senate president have too much muscle now, this arguably would give them more, making rank-and-file members even more dependent on them while tying up the wallets of others. It's tantamount to no reform at all; as such, a deal-breaker.

Tribune Spotlights The Nation's "Worst" FOIA Laws

Angela Caputo — Mon, 04 May 2009 12:45:17 -0700

Over the past two days, the Tribune has unveiled a new series devoted to public transparency titled "Your Government in Secret." An article yesterday detailed the awful public records access in Illinois, which led Terry Mutchler to deem us "the worst state in the country when it comes to transparency and open records." Mutchler would know. As the public access counselor under Attorney General Lisa Madigan, she advocated on behalf of citizens, watchdogs, and journalists when Freedom of Information Act requests were turned down or ignored. Mutchler has since moved on to a similar job in Pennsylvania and the state is yet to hire a replacement.

Even as Madigan tries to restore the public access office and expand its authority, the Tribune diligently points out why enforcement is no substitute for overhauling FOIA laws:

Government records routinely turned over at the front counters in many other states are routinely denied here -- the result of a notoriously weak open records law, an unsympathetic political culture and an attitude of disdain among many public servants who consider documents their own. [...]

The state's Freedom of Information Act has more pages devoted to what records you can't get than what you can, from public officials' personnel files to memos in which they express opinions.

In a separate article, the Tribune also takes aim at the Daley administration's resistance to transparency. If you've been following our municipal coverage, this indefensible pattern of secrecy should come as no suprise. They recall unsuccessful efforts to learn more about the blue bag recycling program and the leasing of public assets, describing these government operations as "cloaked in secrecy." As a result, citizens remain largely in the dark about "how Daley really runs Chicago."

As an example, the article goes on to note the city's efforts to keep repeat-offender lists out of the hands of lawyers representing victims of police abuse. This is an issue we've written about extensively. The Tribune notes that the underlying policies leave public records officials in other states scratching their heads:

[D]isciplinary files of public employees are not open records under Illinois law, a policy that puzzles officials in other states where such documents are public.

Without seeing the files, "how else can the public evaluate whether a public agency is adequately investigating those claims?" said Laurie Beyer-Kropuenske, Minnesota's top public records official. "Doesn't the public have a right to know why the Police Department found all 100 complaints against Officer Friendly to be completely without merit?"

The Tribune deserves credit for calling out officials' half-hearted handling of FOIA requests and for providing a hand to frustrated citizens by opening an open records help desk.

Hopefully, they will go on to explore some of the most relevant recommendations that have been brought to the debate thus far. Last week, we highlighted the Chicago Justice Project's (CJP) ideas for bringing FOIA into the 21st century. There's no excuse for failing to keep public records and completed FOIA responses in an electronic format so they're available for future downloads. Although the General Aseembly is likely to pass some open-records reforms this year, meaningful new rules are what's really needed.

Quinn's Commission Lays Down Blueprint For Reform

Adam Doster — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:17:23 -0700

After another gubernatorial indictment and months of hearings, Gov. Pat Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission finally issued its 34 recommendations (PDF) for reforming Illinois government yesterday. Media outlets across the state quickly dug through the details and voiced their praise. The Tribune called the 88-page report "an impeccably researched and detailed assault on the culture that spawns so much corruption." The Sun-Times said the commission "has done a terrific job."

But now that the dust has settled, what did the group actually propose? And do their recommendations stand a chance of passage? Here's a quick rundown:

Campaign Finance
The group suggested the state impose limits on contributions to political campaigns from all sources ($2,400 for individuals, $5,000 from PACs, unions, and corporations), ban campaign contributions from lobbyists and trusts, enact three new disclosure requirements (year-round submission of campaign disclosure filings, campaign contribution "bundlers," and soft money independent expenditures), enhance the Illinois State Board of Elections, and enact a pilot project for public financing of judicial elections in 2010 with an eye toward expanding the program to elections of statewide legislative officials and Constitutional posts.

Government Structure
Some of the more controversial proposals have to deal with structural questions. Among them, the commission wants the state to use computers to reform the state’s redistricting process, impose term limits on legislative leaders, require those leaders to earn no outside income, and amend the House and Senate Rules to ensure that each piece of proposed legislation with a minimum number of sponsors receives an up-or-down committee vote. Essentially, they took dead aim at the power held by the so-called "four tops": the House Speaker, the Senate president, and the minority leader in each chamber. Strangely, the commission didn't propose term limits for the governor.

Procurement/ Better Government
The committee wants to shed more light on the state's contracting system by moving state procurement officials into an insulated, central, independent procurement office and establishing an Independent Contract Monitoring Office to oversee and review the procurement process. The committee also wants to eliminate loopholes and exemptions in the Procurement Code, mandate greater disclosure for contractors and lobbyists, and reform Illinois’ hiring process and ethics training.

Enforcement/Transparency
To bolster enforcement, the commission proposes providing state-level prosecutors with many of the same tools available to federal authorities and modifying the laws applicable to Inspector General’s Offices to improve the ability of the IG to conduct investigations independently. The Illinois Attorney General should also be granted authority to conduct its own grand jury investigations of public corruption offenses. And all public documents should be made readily and easily accessible to the public through the Internet and on-line databases and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) processes need to be strengthened.

It's still too early to tell what might get passed. Some ideas could pick up steam quickly -- Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno has expressed support for the FOIA and contracting reforms. Many of the procurement issues also seem to have widespread support. It's the campaign finance and structural issues that are more controversial.

The suggestion that legislative leaders might limit their tenure didn't sit well with House Speaker Michael Madigan, or Radogno for that matter, as both made statements calling the idea unnecessary. And there is clearly no consensus on the issue of campaign contribution limits, as we've documented repeatedly, or public financing for judicial elections (a no-brainer if there ever was one).

The rigid posture taken by the commission has also irked some. Yesterday, Capitol Fax described commission head Patrick Collins' all-or-nothing statements to legislators as "just plan counter productive," citing this report from the Tribune:

The head of Gov. Pat Quinn’s anti-corruption commission looked into the eyes of the legislature’s top leaders at the Illinois Capitol and said nothing less than a sweeping victory on a package of good-government proposals is necessary to clean up a state notoriously not ready for reform.

Removing government secrecy, overhauling campaign financing, removing politics when awarding contracts, changing the way elections are held, enforcing strong penalties for misbehavior — every one of these reforms must be approved or “there will be a hole, there will be a trap door, there will be room for the next scandal,” former federal prosecutor Patrick Collins told the leaders.

The General Assembly's session ends on May 31 and Quinn wants to see each recommendation receive an individual vote by the legislature. Lawmakers, on the other hand, would rather see the similar recommendations bundled into larger bills. Working out this process is going to be the first step and we'll be watching it carefully.

CHANGE Illinois Rallies For Campaign Finance Reform

Angela Caputo — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:31:14 -0700

In the wake of the Blagojevich scandal, many activists and civic-minded residents are hoping that 2009 is the year the Illinois General Assembly finally reforms the state's lax campaign finance laws. In January, we highlighted a batch of campaign finance reform measures that are being considered in Springfield. Today, the CHANGE Illinois coalition led a rally in downtown Chicago demanding that the legislature place a cap on campaign contributions. Below are some excerpts from the various speakers' remarks.

Illinois Campaign for Political Reform's Cindi Canary echoed her recent Progress Illinois column on why the Prairie State is a breeding ground for political corruption:

"Here we've got a system so wide open that that it's like a main thoroughfare with no stop light. For years we've been talking about the links between contributions and contracts. It's the biggest open secret in Illinois ... I have no doubt that we'll get reform. But will it be meaningful or will [elected officials] go after low hanging fruit?"

Rami Nashashiba, director of the Inner City Muslim Action Network :

"[Corruption] means much more to us in communities where families are struggling to get by. When the state of Illinois gets a corruption cold, it's us that gets the bone-chilling flu ... Without political integrity there's not political will to do what's right."

Patricia Watkins, TARGET Area Redevelopment Corp.:

"We're saying no more pay-to-play in Illinois ... We want to give everyday people -- the voters -- back their voices in Illinois government. We have been silenced long enough. So now we are saying enough ... It's going to take you, you, you, and you and every one of us to be a part of that change."

Peter Bensinger, owner of Bensinger, Dupont & Assoc.:

"The problem -- and it's a big problem -- is not with one individual. It's with the system. We need to change the system. We need to limit campaign contributions. Businesses in this state are paying for a tax that doesn't appear on their tax [bill]. It's the corruption tax. It's the fear of 'How much do I need to pay to get attention?' "

Merri Dee, AARP Illinois State President:

"I am so tired of traveling around and I meet people ... and they say "Where are you from?" and I say 'Chicago' and they say 'Illinois, ha, ha, ha,' and they laugh ... I am furious about that. I take it personally and that's what you need to do. You need to take it personally."

Chuy Garcia, director of Enlace Chicago:

"The reason that politicians and politics have become a bad name is because of the corrupting influence of big money in politics. Big money in politics separates legislators from their constituents. It confuses them. It makes them deviate form the important issues ... because big money trumps the agenda of common people ... I am so happy to join with you today as a recovering politician in saying we will clean up the system."

Reform Commission Calls For Caps, Lobbying Reform

Adam Doster — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:42:21 -0700

Back in January, Gov. Pat Quinn used his first executive order to bring the Illinois Reform Commission (IRC) -- an independent ethics panel he created as Lt. Governor to devise a blueprint for state political reform -- under the office of the governor. Two months later, former federal prosecutor Patrick Collins and his fellow commission members have made their initial recommendations public. The Tribune has the specifics. Here are a few highlights:

*Establish campaign contribution limits of $2,400 from individuals; $5,000 from special interest groups, organized labor and corporations; and $50,000 from party committeess to statewide candidtaes

*Extend a "pay to play" ban regarding state contracts and campaign contributions to the General Assembly.

*Ban contributions from lobbyists and trusts altogether.

*Hold primary elections in June, closer to the November general election, to cut down on costs and length of campaigns.

*Set up a test project for taxpayer financing of campaigns.

The reform community should be pleased with the recommendations. Even though Collins didn't put any members of the state's good government groups on his commission, two of their top priorities following the Blagojevich impeachment -- campaign contributions and a beefed-up pay-to-play ban -- made the cut. And a pilot program for public financing seems a legitimate compromise for those skeptical about its cost and viability.

House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton's bicameral ethics committee will deliver their own report soon and is expected to make far less comprehensive recommendations. But Quinn and reform advocates shouldn't let the IRC's ideas get swept under the rug. Now is a perfect time to force powerful-yet-hesitant party leaders to reform the electoral system drastically. But it's going to take a lot of pressure to make that happen.

Mayor Daley: "I'm Sorry"

Progress Illinois — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:08:38 -0700

He must have realized that sending out a press release yesterday saying he "accepted" Al Sanchez' federal conviction wasn't really sufficient. From the Tribune:

A day after a federal jury convicted his former Streets and Sanitation commissioner of corruption charges, the mayor read a statement at a news conference.

"I want to say to the people of Chicago that I understand this is a disappointment," Daley said.

He said he knew the conviction does not reflect well on the city or his administration.

"For that, I am sorry," Daley said.

UPDATE: Capitol Fax asks: "Is that really an apology?" Good point. Apologizing for the disappointment caused by your actions isn't quite the same as apologizing for the actions themselves.