CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Fly Boy — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:28:18 -0000

1. Term limits. Maximum of 8 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. The best politicians get move up, the hacks don't.
2. Contribution limits of $500 in primary and $500 in general election.
3. Require 100 percent discolosure via the Internet within 72 hours of all donations.
4. No donations from anyone doing or seeking business from the state.
5. Make legislators full-time and bar them from receiving any type of other income. This would require a salary boost so we could attract quality candidates, but this small investment would payoff in less graft. If someone wants to serve, they should have to be willing to only take one salary. They should be serving the people, afterall, and not themselves.
6. No government paid jobs or contracts for spouses of elected officials.
7. Limit the number of political committees that one individual can create to one.
8. Pass recall bill to give voters the ability to remove corrupt hacks.
9. Enable easier process for ballot initiaitves so the people can take back their government when those feeding from the trough can't or won't.
10. Give US Attorneys a larger staff and budget to fight public coruption.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:14:30 -0000

No. Its analagous to saying we have a good building fire code so we don't need a fire department. So, if we had real good ethics laws, we wouldn't need inspectors general and the US Attorney would be out of work to do? To me, its an almost laughable assumption. Pay some attention to politics and government and elect better people and even then, keep the fire department.

Re: Question of the day

Phil Collins — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:45:32 -0000

I agree that Illinois needs term limits. Since the con. con. didn't pass, we should try to petition, to get reform referendums, on the Nov. 2010 ballot. The state constitution, in Article XIV, Section 3, Constitution Initiative for Legislative Article, states that amendments to the constitution may be proposed by a petition signed by at least 8% of the people who voted in the last governor election. About 3,500,000 people voted, in the 2006 governor election, so 8% is 280,000. We should pass amendments for term limits, recall elections, and fairer petition signature requirements, for all political parties.

Re: Question of the day

Ghost — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:55:59 -0000

You can not remove all coruption with laws.

The law can help make it harder for criminal or innappropriate activity and thus there is merit in placing more strictures in place. or example, a large part of the illegal shakedows were facilitated by a lack of limitations on donations from those doing business with the State. Prohibiting donations from those who have a potential fro finincial game would have cut off a significant source of the shakedowns. Such a law does not make the already illegal shakedowns illega, it makes it difficult to carry out the shakedonw or get the money.

We need increased stritures on who can donate, when and under what circumstanes to dry up much of the access to funding which can drive corruption.

You will not end all corruption, but you can make a big dent in it. Just as we can not end all crime, bt we can reduce crime rates.

On a side note, more ethics laws etc are meaningless without meaningful enforcement. We do not reduce crim with laws alone, we do it with laws and an active police force enforcing those laws. Who is watching over ethics in the Govenors office currently in IL? The Ethics investigator appointed by the Gov, beholden to to the Gov.

Re: Question of the day

TroubleMaker — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:54:11 -0000

Of course the answer is "Yes."

Two words: Term limits. By eliminating the ability to remain in office, you eliminate the temptation to be on the take to stay there.

Sure, that won't cure everything, as another poster noted, corruption will find a way, but term limits will kill a lot of it.

Re: Question of the day

Phil Collins — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:33:04 -0000

Illinois has more governments than any other state, although 24 states are larger, in area, and four states have more people. Illinois has 8,655 governments, including the state, 102 counties, 1,034 townships, many towns, school districts, library boards, and park districts.

Re: Question of the day

Cook County Commoner — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:01:51 -0000

No, because our elected officials are not answerable to non-government employed citizens at election time. My theory follows. The Dept of Labor not too long ago stated that Illinois has 800,000 government employees. I suspect that most are in the Chicago-Cook County area. I also suspect that most are state, county, municipal or other local government employees. Most are probably unionized, have almost ironclad job security and enjoy a salary exceeding what is available for similar work in the private sector. Most are eligible for a pension which is unheard of in the private sector (eg, retirement at 80 to 90% of salary with full medical at 50 or so). Now add in current retirees enjoying this taxpayer sponsored golden parachute and spouses and dependents of active and retired employees. Add to this the contractors and their employees who want to do business with Illinois government entities and their spouses and dependents. What you have is a pool of people probably reaching over 1.5 million, who will donate money (individually or through unions and trade organizations), who will do campaign work and will vote for satan if instructed to do so, as long as that contract or that secure, well paid, fully health insured retirement in AZ, FL or wherever is at the end of the line while the rest of us have ten years left till social security and medicare. Stir in a lttle voter apathy, especially in off presidential year elections, and you have a monolithic, one issue constituency which can carry an election and only awaits instruction. If my theory is correct, the only solution is to abolish public employee pensions, which the state constitution prohibits.
But there is hope. Goldman Sachs is rumored to be advising clients to purchase Credit Default Swaps (essentially insurance) against the default of bond debt issued by eleven states, including Illinois. Both Cook County and Illinois require more bond sales to prop up their pension plans. If the bonds fail to sell due to prohibitively high rates and pension plans fail in the near future, the public employee coalition supporting corruption may unwind.

Re: Question of the day

Captain Flume — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:56:26 -0000

We have seen examples of Mr. Posahrd's ethics in his doctoral thesis and in the manner in which that was handled. Chicago may be the most famous home of Illinois political behavior but is by no means the only nest fostering it. Southern Illinois is a hotbed of local kingfish that given more population power would certainly give Chicago a run for the money (literally).

Re: Question of the day

vole — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:49:12 -0000

Have to look at the role of the appointed too. The staff folk around people like Ryan and Blago get a taste for the upper class living and are driven financially to be accomplices in these nefarious schemes. They'll do just about anything to enable the reelection of their tainted heads.

This touches on an aspect of the Blago drama that has not been talked about much: his family financial stress. Is this real stress or the stress of wanting higher social status as measured by affluent lifestyles and the symbols of wealth and not having the means of attaining it? Some who have drifted into this territory have gotten off lightly by being able to claim an error in judgment, e.g. Senator Obama and the house deal. The associations between politicians and rich, famous and powerful seem to be driving the politicians to be seeking higher office as a means of attaining wealth and elite status in society.

Also on the list of enablers we need to look at the power of the house and senate leaders and how they exercise their power with the purse. This is obviously a very flawed feature of our state leadership that needs fixing.

And finally the quid pro quo. Almost universally, legislators of all stripes tell us that there is no connection between campaign donations and votes. Does anyone really believe this? So, the high cost of elections, the power of incumbency, the gerrymandering of legislative districts, etc. are all contributing to the problem, not just in corruption but in making the public much more cynical and distrustful of their elected officials. Much of the problem is systemic. It just ain't the people but the system which enables the mess and muddle and all of the wheeling and dealing of cronic corruption.

Re: Question of the day

Cheswick — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:47:09 -0000

== Corruption stems from lack of character, not geography. ==

I totally agree. But I often wonder if Rod Blagojevich wasn't sincere in his promise so many years ago to change the way things are done in state government. Maybe I'm naive, but I think he was. That is until the likes of Tony Rezko got his claws into him. And Bill Cellini, too, I guess. And probably others. Maybe even his wife. They had their own agenda and found a way to force it on the governor. Blagojevich changed for the worse. And then there was no going back.

Well, maybe I'm just deceiving myself into thinking that Rod did have character at one point. That way I don't have to feel so bad that he betrayed us all.

Re: Question of the day

cermak_rd — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:43:45 -0000

Laws are good. But vigorous enforcement is more important. I think an important take away from this is that who sits in the US Attorney's office is important in IL, and to always make sure we get a good one. We may not be able to prosecute the way out of this, but it's not a bad start.

Another idea? Perhaps a good way for government to get cleaned up is to preemptively tap all the legislators' phones and offices on the grounds that there is a persistent pattern of crime involved with IL governance and that as long as that's the case then there is no expectation of privacy on the part of the members of the government.

I voted once for G. Ryan (Poshard seemed a bit too anti-gay for my taste), and 3 times for Blago (1 primary, 2 generals--I was bitter toward the GOP after the 2000 election and vowed never to vote GOP again. I've stuck with it, though I'll admit to a write-in and a few Green party candidates since then). So you may want to take my viewpoint with a grain of salt, as I seem to be an enabler.

Re: Question of the day

the Other Anonymous — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:07:37 -0000

I've a bit about the QOTD reading some analysis of the Blagojevich scandal. It occured to me that much, if not all, of the emphasis is on making it difficult for politicians to act unethically.

But what about the lobbyists and contractors who are the "pay" part of "pay to play"? If, for example, we increased penalties and/or enforcement against the people who make political contributions for profit, wouldn't the market for graft dry up?

I'm not suggesting that we stop scrutinizing public officials, but only that Blagojevich could get away with his brazen corruption because there were people willing to make contributions in exchange for public benefits. you've got fix that problem as well.

Re: Question of the day

chiatty — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:46:14 -0000

Poshard got absolutely hammered by the Tribune because he had the temerity to suggest that George Ryan was corrupt and that his corrupt leadership was in some way related to the Willis tragedy. The Tribune pushed George Ryan over the top in a big way. They made Poshard look like a ghoul. At that time, the U.S. attorney's office was taking their sweet time with the Safe Roads investigation and the Tribune pushed the Republican and pummeled the Democrat.

Re: Question of the day

Suzanne — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:44:03 -0000

That crooks can and do evade laws is not a reason not to institute them. What it does mean is there is an upper limit to the effectiveness of laws designed to restrict or prohibit certain activities. Beyond that limit, the cost of enforcement exceeds its utility. Does that mean the optimal level of corruption is greater than zero. Yes. But considering we currently have no limits on campaign contributions for individuals, PACs and corporations (unless one is bidding/holding a state contract in excess of $50K), weâ€™ve got a heck of a long way to go before we have to worry ourselves with the upper limits.

Re: Question of the day

Irish — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:39:04 -0000

I also think that the mainstream media has fumbled the ball on many occasions. I remember as a young adult and in my history lessons that investigative journalists and TV reporters conducted many investigations that brought many politicians to their political demise. When was the last time one of the mainstream media in Illinois conducted any investigation of a public figure and brought them down? I recall many instances in Blago's governorship when something would be brought up and then it would disappear. Example: the $1500.00 check given to one his daughters for their birthday from an individual seeking a state job for their spouse. When I heard that I thought wow they got him. He was asked about it on live news and he faltered several times trying to answer. I thought again wow they got him. Then nothing. This same scenerio was repeated on several different issues this Governor was involved in. Why don't these main stream news organizations follow up on these stories and run them to ground?

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:28:33 -0000

==George Ryan was pushed upon us by the right wing downstaters who voted for Glenn Poshard in the primary.==

I don't know about that. Poshard was a real contender and by the time of the primary, looked even better. Ryan just looked more stable on Election Day. Poshard had too many of you people sniping at him to keep his traction. I think voters like you killed off Poshard's chance.

Re: Question of the day

Bill — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:22:50 -0000

George Ryan was pushed upon us by the right wing downstaters who voted for Glenn Poshard in the primary.

Re: Question of the day

He Makes Ryan Look Like a Sain — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:22:26 -0000

Come on, George is a Chicago Area guy. Edgar might have a little dirt on his hands, but nothing like George or Rod.

I think there needs to be stricter ethics laws than what was passed

1. $1000 Coporate limit per year per candidate.
2. $250 Personal limit per year per candidate.
3. TERM LIMITS 8 years per office, (if it is good enough for the President of the US, it should be good enough for EVERY other office.
4. More checks and balances, take some of the power out of the Governor, and Legislative leaders.

STRICT oversite on Large Contracts.

Most of all, RECALL could perhaps make officials do the will of the people. They don't police themselves, so give the voters more power to do so.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:05:15 -0000

--Paul Powell, OK, but George Ryan was pushed on us by the Chi-town folks.--

Jane Addams? Enrico Fermi? Mike Ditka? Who were these terrible people and how did they push him on you? I admit I voted for Rod the first time. Not the second.

Re: Question of the day

Pot calling kettle — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:02:30 -0000

Paul Powell, OK, but George Ryan was pushed on us by the Chi-town folks.

Re: Question of the day

Mountain Man — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:00:55 -0000

You know, in most circumstances I am completely opposed to term limits, but as a former resident of Illinois who now resides in a state with term limits (Colorado), it seems to me that the fine citizens of Illinois might want to take a look at them. Senators limited to two terms; house members limited to three; executive officers limited to two terms. (Limiting mayors and city council members would be a good idea as well)

Limit campaign contributions to $200 per campaign (primary and general--with full disclosure down to the penny); require transparency for independent expenditure groups and their contributions (all contributors listed on their wesite and the website included in all ads); and finally no governement employee or elected official allowed to be employed as a lobbyist for a period of 5 years following their leaving public service.

Re: Question of the day

retired non-union state guy — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:00:51 -0000

NO - in my 30 plus years I saw them either (a) figure out how to go around the laws or (b) the legislature deliberately left a loophole somewhere that could be squeezed through. The only way new ethics legislation might work is if the State procurement rules allow absolutely zero discretion in both the specification and evaluation process ... and I don't see how that would work in practice. The only thing that MIGHT work would be a 100% ban on any kind of contribution to a politician or his family ... but that would violate first amendment rights and be ruled illegal.

What we need are better elected officials, people like we used to have, such as Paul Simon, Adlai Stevenson and Richard Ogilvie ... people who stood for something and did what was right for the citizens. But the only way to get these people is to have informed and involved voters ... I'll let you draw your own conclusions about the typical Illinois voter.

Re: Question of the day

Jechislo — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:56:34 -0000

Isn't it ironic how the appointment of Obama's Senate seat is the issue that finally brings the whole world on board with what all of us have known for 5 years? That being that Blagojevich is a deranged, mentally deficient, arrogant crook. Ethics laws will not be the catalyst that stops people like Blagojevich from ruining Illinois. It will be the people of Illinois finally not voting these type of people in office. And, we need a way of recalling the bad apples.

Re: Question of the day

Philo-King — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:54:46 -0000

NO the ethics laws will not help and everyone elses suggestions are way off!

100% Publically Funded Elections and a ban on all private campaign contributions is the only answer!
As long as we have privately funded elections and money is equated to free speech we will never have a functioning Democracy, just a hollowed out shell of one!

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:54:26 -0000

--The current pay to play ban that starts Jan 1 is obviously a good start. This is proven by the fact that Blago entered into this "crime spree" because the clock was ticking according to Fitz.--

In a funny way then (strange funny, not ha-ha funny), the new ethics law prompted a crime spree. Whoops.

Seriously, Blago's not the smartest crook to ever serve in office. A smarter one would have found a different way to break the law. Let's just stop electing crooks.