Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Did Syverson’s guest violate Senate rules?
Next Post: “Plan C” seems more likely
Posted in:
* Finke…
That Rep. DAVID MCSWEENEY, R-Barrington Hills, is no fan of House Republican Leader JIM DURKIN of Western Springs is no secret. It appears you can add Senate Republican Leader BILL BRADY of Bloomington to his unwelcome wagon list.
McSweeney took to Twitter last week, posting a photograph of Brady and a link to a recent WCIA-TV story about the dispute between Brady and Sen. JASON PLUMMER, R-Edwardsville. Plummer said Brady offered to appoint him to a newly formed commission to revise ethics laws if Plummer promised to drop legislation prohibiting lawmakers from profiting off of gambling companies. Brady has a business relationship with a company that places video gaming terminals. Brady denied Plummer’s allegation.
Safe to say, McSweeney is backing Plummer on this.
“It’s time to reform Illinois,” he said in his Tweet accompanying the photo and WCIA story. “I’m fighting corruption in both parties!”
* A Proft paper named Prairie State Wire also followed up…
The dispute emphasizes yet again the need for ethics reform in general and full disclosure of the extent of a lawmaker’s financial interests, Jay Young, executive director of Common Cause Illinois, said.
“I can’t speak to the dispute over what he (Brady) and Senator Plummer actually said to one another,” Young told Prairie State Wire. “However, Senator Brady’s failure to adequately disclose his financial interests in a video gaming concern presents a clear challenge to our democracy.”
He added that Brady appears to be in compliance with the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, but the act doesn’t require him to disclose third-party money paid into Brady Ventures.
“There’s nothing inherently illegal about receiving money from a gaming company, but the public and his colleagues should have known that his judgment could be clouded by those payments,” Young said. “Here in Illinois, the Statements of Economic Interests that our legislators are asked to file fall well short of what is needed to hold them accountable.”
As long as legislators can earn unlimited income from almost any outside source, they ought to be reporting a whole lot more on their Statements of Economic Interests than they are now.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 9:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Did Syverson’s guest violate Senate rules?
Next Post: “Plan C” seems more likely
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
=== A Proft paper===
Another clear and prime example of Proft forcing a crack and divide in the Raunerite Party (even if in this instance there is a question to the ethical moves) because where Proft makes his hay is making sure there’s a divide *he* can exploit and eventually grift off the divide.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 9:51 am
HB 173…
Comment by Not Again Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 9:53 am
The solution to this problem has always been:
1) banning state legislators from outside employment
2) Making state legislators a full time job
3) Increasing their legislative salaries commensurate with full time work
But very few folks want to do this because:
1) Current legislators wouldn’t be able to cash in on their power.
2) Very few folks want to pay legislators more.
Comment by MG85 Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 9:57 am
This alone, to the post,
If Plummer is honest to intent, than that honesty to what Leader Brady should have or needs to do going forward is an important discussion.
If this is an attempt to put Plummer as the face of a forced divide of 19 of 59 members of the Senate, to a bigger picture that Leader Brady is “too close” to the Governor, and purity disguised as the “loyal opposition”, then what has this whole caucus learned since it’s own “ouster” of Leader Radogno? Between Rauner double-crossing Radogno and the apparent desire that the caucus felt to support Rauner over Radogno, what was learned? It’s moves like this that makes a caucus of 19 a caucus of 16. Its moves like this that in the long run nothing they can bargain for will happen, because the 40 not Raunerites, they’ll move on without ya, as you argue who’s not “angry” enough or partisan enough.
If you’re cowardly enough to say in reports you want a leader not so close to the governor, than stand up and say it publicly. No one wants to see another Radogno double-cross, and if you’re telling me Plummer is the only one in this brouhaha, that’s disingenuous to other reports that quote the meek and their “frustrations”
The caucus should take the holidays to cool down, recalibrate, and figure out what this all means, the story and the story behind the story.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:01 am
I thought Plummer ‘fessed up and said he and Brady never talked about video gaming.
From WCIA:
“I agree that the words video gaming never came up,” Plummer said on Tuesday afternoon from his lumber store in Edwardsville.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:02 am
MG85, legislators already get paid full time wages for part time work. Base pay of 68k is more than the median household makes. According to the IPI (I know, but they’re what popped up on Google) IL legislators have the fifth highest salary in the nation, and that might’ve changed with the $1,600 pay raise they “accidentally” gave themselves.
I think they should be able to make do with the current salary, but if we do hike it it shouldn’t be by much.
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:05 am
== But very few folks want to do this because:==
Add to that list: We would get fewer regular working people in office and more billionaires and people working for the billionaires. Nobody will want to sell the family farm or the family lumber store for what might be a two year stint. It wouldn’t be worth it.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:08 am
Perrid is correct, legislators here make pretty darn good money for part time work when compared to other states. Add in the leadership bonuses, per diem, mileage, etc it adds up to a heck of a lot more money than most folks make. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for them not to get involved in financial dealings that are questionable at best.
That being said, as long as Sen. Van Pelt is allowed to keep operating her cannabis Ponzi scheme, I see no reason for Sen. Brady to stop doing what he’s doing.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:16 am
McSweeney is a Caucus of one. Giving more credence to what he says than that is to misread reality. He literally has no audience among his Legislative brethren. None.
Comment by Say What? Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:26 am
- MG85 -
New York State took your suggested approach. The speaker of their House and majority leader of their Senate both got convicted on corruption charges last year related to outside income. A reform commission there implemented a plan to boost legislative pay and limit outside income to 15 percent of legislative salary. A state court struck it down as unconstitutional however, ruling the commission didn’t have the authority to implement the plan with a vote by the legislature.
Comment by TNR Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:00 am
==New York State took your suggested approach.==
I understand. I also understand America took Madison’s suggested approach of federal government and over 400 allegations of misconduct have been counted since our government was formed. Also, 19 Civil Officers have been impeached (including soon to be 3 Presidents).
Given your point here, should we not have taken the Federalists point of view on government?
I don’t think so. My point was not to say malfeasance wouldn’t happen, but that it would be harder to conduct and easier to prosecute. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
==legislators already get paid full time wages for part time work.==
I would disagree. As far as taxpayers go, we get a pretty good bargain for the work they do. You may hate politics, but if they were paid hourly wages (with time and a half for overtime, and double time for holidays), we would be on the hook for much more. If they charged us as a company would, the billable hours would put their worth in the millions.
I know I won’t win any popularity contests with this position, but underpaid political positions leave very few possible to assume them. In states where political figures are paid measly wages, it is mostly wealthy folks who are the only ones who can afford to run and stay in office.
Comment by MG85 Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:56 am
- MG85 -
Should have explained myself better…I agree with your approach.
Comment by TNR Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:15 pm
Speaking of Proft’s papers, there’s an update about his enterprise
https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/hundreds-of-pink-slime-local-news-outlets-are-distributing-algorithmic-stories-conservative-talking-points.php
Comment by Morty Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:33 pm