« Free My Rod | Chicago, Open Up Your Pocket Books: Olympic Village Deal Back On » |
Illinois Wed Dec 10 2008
Stronger Pay-to-Play Bill Needed
This spring, the legislature passed HB824 over Gov. Blagojevich's veto, and subsequently I started to see quotes, columns, and campaign literature by politicians, including some I support, claiming it ended "pay-to-play" in Illinois. For example, Dan Kotowski said the bill "ensures that elected officials are not for sale" and Dan Hynes said that "pay-to-play politics will be prohibited in Illinois government."
Whether that was incomplete reading of legislation, or simple political hype, I don't know, but such claims oversell the new law somewhat.
HB824 targeted only one noxious practice: payments by contractors who have or seek business -- of more than $50,000 annually -- with the state.
In an editorial I submitted to the Tribune at the time, but which they didn't print, I wrote that HB824 doesn't address "contributions which buy appointments, fill vacancies, or gain favor on bills (such as a zoning variance)." Such trading of money for access, influence, or power is a more insidious and more common species of pay-to-play than blatant money-for-money purchases of state business. "The bill also ignores troublesome third-party payments, such as hiring an official's spouse, or donating to an official's favorite charity."
Forgive me if I indulge in a little "told you so." As it turns out, these are the essence of the fiercest charges we've yet seen against a sitting governor in Illinois. And nothing the governor did or tried to do in attempting to sell a Senate seat would be illegal under HB824.
A more comprehensive ban on pay-to-play, in all its variants, would (a) enact reasonable contribution limits, and (b) extend, within constitutional limits, the existing ethics ban on personal gifts to also include the swap of campaign cash for official acts. Currently, both the donor and donee in a transaction that might otherwise be a Class 2 felony are usually protected if the quid pro quo is logged as a political contribution.
A reform law would have to be careful to respect legitimate first amendment rights, including those of activist groups, businesspersons, and existing and aspiring governmental employees. Proving intent might often be tough. But Illinois has no shortage of talented constitutional lawyers, and we've passed bills to regulate many less-toxic activities. The only real obstacle is lack of political will.
In the howls for the governor's head it's important to remember that this is not simply a problem of one aberrant personality, even if it is a jaw-dropper. What the governor was caught saying crudely on tape is how many politicians think and act as a matter of course. We have to root out the mentality that has put Illinois atop the list of most corrupt states, tainting decisionmaking on everything from what becomes law to who governs. Fighting pay-to-play in patchwork fashion is not the answer. If we ever want to get rid of "Where's mine?", "One hand washes the other," and "We don't want nobody nobody sent," we have to smack the hand that picks up the tab.
Ramsin / December 10, 2008 1:25 PM
Essentially Jeff, isn't the problem just cash in politics? We can keep dancing around these problems all we want, but until we get full public financing and either abolish cash in politics altogether or put in some kind of blind system where donations must be anonymous, won't we just keep plugging holes only find new leaks springing elsewhere?
Isn't Buckley v. Valeo just wrongly decided and the cause of these troubles?