Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Climate/energy bill coverage roundup
Posted in:
* Rep. Wilhour’s question about the omnibus ethics bill wasn’t really answered during debate except for the obvious reply that it was a motion on a the bill in front of them. But I think it was a pretty good question overall…
The bill originally came about in response to several high-profile scandals in recent years, including the indictment of Rep. Luis Arroyo, D-Chicago, who has since resigned. He also had a lobbying business that lobbied the city of Chicago and he was charged with attempting to bribe a state senator to support legislation that would have benefitted his client.
One of the provisions of SB 539 prohibits elected officials, including lawmakers, from engaging in “compensated lobbying” of other units of government, with the exception of Chicago municipal government. That was a carve-out specifically requested by Chicago city officials who argued that the city’s own lobbying regulations were already stronger than those in the bill.
But Rep. Blaine Wilhour, R-Beecher City, urged rejecting the governor’s amendment and returning to negotiations over a stronger ethics bill.
“There’s a lot of talk from your (Democratic) side of the aisle about how this is just a start and we need to do more and, you know, yada, yada, yada, everything else,” he said to Burke on the House floor. “I don’t think anybody has ever really answered, what’s keeping us from doing more right now? … Do we not know what needs to be done? I mean, what’s keeping us from giving the legislative inspector general the power that the last three say that they need to be to be the proper watchdogs over this body?”
…,Adding… I’ve commented about this twice, but people keep bringing it up so I’m just gonna front-page it. Rep. Wilhour sponsored and/or co-sponsored 9 ethics bills this year. Click here to see them.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 9:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Climate/energy bill coverage roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Where is Representative Wilhour’s bill to do more?
I am a big proponent and supporter of strong public ethics laws but this is still rhetoric. Representative Wilhour has the ability to draft and introduce bills. He has the ability to suggest actual provisions and build support to bring them into law.
Where was Representative Wilhour’s vote to censure Chris Miller?
Why isn’t Representative Wilhour doing more?
Comment by Candy Dogood Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 10:14 am
We’re not ready for reform.
Comment by Glenn Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 10:15 am
“vote to censure Chris Miller?”
If we stay in “What aboutism”, we will be stuck here forever.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 10:19 am
Downstate is right. Let’s stick to the topic, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 10:42 am
I’ll tell you exactly what is keeping the GA from doing more: They are not interested in ethical government. If they were interested in ethical government, they wouldn’t have used sophisticated computer software to gerrymander a legislative map in secret rooms designed to guarantee a pre-determined outcome.
A fair election is the foundation for ethical government. If they can’t even do that, they will never be able to do anything else.
Comment by Just Me 2 Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 10:43 am
It is the what aboutism that keeps this from happening. It’s this idea of ethics reform that centers around what people outside of their tribe should be doing.
Comment by Pundent Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:07 am
=== If they were interested in ethical government, they wouldn’t have used sophisticated computer software to gerrymander===
It’s a national issue. Take it up now with “DC types”
To the post,
Of course, more could, and should, be done.
To this;
===“… Do we not know what needs to be done? I mean, what’s keeping us from giving the legislative inspector general the power that the last three say that they need to be to be the proper watchdogs over this body?”===
It’s neither a simple solution, to have oversight, even total autonomy.
The real difference between ethics and the legal are the passed laws and consequences to the measure.
To have legislators be “beholden” to an ethical watchdog, versus being held accountable to their oath and the law, how do voters fit into this equation?
You have an alderperson in Burke who won re-election while under criminal indictment. Is the GA willing to let an inspector general dictate the seating of members, isn’t it up to the body to regulate whom can sit… and what exactly will be that tipping point?
Nope. It’s not a slippery slope. Not even close.
The question posed is about how the constitutional existence and its oversight should be outlined?
Maybe begin with an honest discussion to what is ethically and morally the line(s) by which membership can end or be denied, no matter an election outcome… and who triggers such a move.
The rest is the level of punishment a body, and not an IG could or should levy to the discretion *of* the IG?
The structure of the “how” is probably a good point to start before filling in the “what” can get things to escalate?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:11 am
===If we stay in “What aboutism”, we will be stuck here forever. ===
I’m not sure that the idea that a legislator being able to propose legislation and amendments to legislation really counts as whataboutism. Rep. Wilhour isn’t addressing the elephant in the room he is asking, “Is there an elephant in the room?”
I hope he knows there’s an elephant in the room. I hope he understands that for whatever reason our legislators, members of both parties, have some anxiety about establishing standards that can be or will be used against them.
Having Republican legislators take popshots at the existing legislation as not going far enough or not being good enough is something that is difficult to treat with much sincerity since they have not offered up their own proposal. No matter how strong the Democrats proposal they would have attacked it for not being good enough or not going far enough.
Can the Illinois legislature pass better ethics reform? Absolutely.
Are the Republicans involved in that effort? No.
Maybe we should ask someone to check with Jay Hoffman’s dog to see where the Republican ethics reform bill is.
===Downstate is right. Let’s stick to the topic, please. ===
I don’t think my inclusion of that is really off topic. I think a vote against Representative Chris Miller’s censure is a pretty bold statement that a state legislator does not believe there should be any shred of accountability for the behavior of other legislators from their own party, no matter how toothless. Perhaps I needed to elaborate on that.
Comment by Candy Dogood Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:12 am
Someone should introduce a ban on outside income for legislators. I’d like to see how many votes it would get.
That’s probably the simplest reform the General Assembly could take to improve its ethical reputation.
Just like morality, we can’t legislate character. I’d argue for simple ethics rules that are easy to understand and enforce, and I’d include a mechanism to expel those found to have violated the ethics laws. But I don’t think such a bill would get many votes.
So to answer Wilhour, the lack of votes is what’s keeping the General Assembly from doing more.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:18 am
=Of course, more could, and should, be done.=
Yep. The problem seems to be multifaceted though because the approach is politically based and not one based purely on ethics and good conduct.
If they were to work on developing standards that were based on right and wrong, instead of right and left, we would get somewhere. But this always seems to descend into “how can we stick it to the other party” or party-based protectionism.
I also used to think that adults know the difference between right and wrong, but that seems to be bogged down in tribalism now.
I think real ethics reform is beyond politicians real desire or capacity.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:22 am
===Rep. Wilhour isn’t addressing the elephant in the room===
Wilhour sponsored and/or co-sponsored 9 ethics bills this year https://ilga.gov/house/RepBills.asp?MemberID=2962
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:24 am
=== A fair election is the foundation for ethical government. If they can’t even do that, they will never be able to do anything else. ===
Do they deliver Uber Eats to you up in your ivory tower?
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:32 am
=== Someone should introduce a ban on outside income for legislators. I’d like to see how many votes it would get.
That’s probably the simplest reform the General Assembly could take to improve its ethical reputation. ===
A ban on outside income for legislators is a bad idea and would immediately cause the vast majority of legislators to retire. Like it or not, this is a part time legislature and if you ban outside income, the quality of candidates you would get would be very poor, in my opinion.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:34 am
=== A fair election is the foundation for ethical government. If they can’t even do that, they will never be able to do anything else.===
How did Madigan beat an “unfair” map 4 of 5 times?
Why do you keep ignoring that maps, while very influential, don’t wholly dictate exacting outcomes.
There are members of each caucus that seemingly go against what the map should produce.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:35 am
Just clarifying my previous response to Just Me 2, I am not criticizing the idea of fair elections. I just don’t think that gerrymandering necessarily has any relation to “fair” elections. After all, fairness lies in the eye of the beholder.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:36 am
===It’s a national issue. Take it up now with “DC types”===
Um…in case you missed it in 5th grade, we have a federal system of government where each state is sovereign from the national government.
===Why do you keep ignoring that maps, while very influential, don’t wholly dictate exacting outcomes.===
Thank you for acknowledging that corruptly drawn maps are very influential to determine a pre-selected outcome.
Comment by Just Me 2 Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:38 am
===case you missed it in 5th grade, we have a federal system of government where each state is sovereign from the national government.===
Friend, this is a political football that neither side is willing to give up map making leverage.
Further, if you wanna go all 5th grade… the Voting Rights Act, which is a law that is in place to keep all these silly states from finding a way to make less voters, including in gerrymandering. You never seem to address that. Why?
Until map making is something like the Voting Rights Act in dictating the process *within* the Voting Rights Act, you are sounding like a 5th grader not grasping real adult situations.
===Thank you for acknowledging that corruptly drawn maps are very influential to determine a pre-selected outcome.===
If a party underperforms, it’s not always a map that makes a “red” seat “blue” or vice versa.
Again, adults understand when you run ridiculous candidates that should be winnable… then lose… maybe it ain’t a map that is holding back any party.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:45 am
People, move along. Now.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:51 am
In my opinion, stronger ethics rules will not serve as a deterrent to those hellbent on committing crimes. I mean, Arroyo was bribing people - Clearly illegal conduct. There is no rule that you can pass that would have stopped that from occurring.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 11:53 am
Gerrymandering is not -only- a national issue. When a state’s politicians attempt to predetermine election outcomes and minimize voting power as much as they can, that’s affects individuals regardless of what happens in other states. When a district is drawn so extremist wing-nuts can easily defeat centrists in the primary, that affects us. JB promised us he wouldn’t sign the pending map. He didn’t tie it to what happens nationally. None of the states, both blue and red, which have acted against partisan gerrymandering have tied it to what happens nationally. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the federal bill - I think the Democrats made a big mistake by not going to Mecham and saying “we understand that you represent a 70% Trumpist state - voting rights is the one thing we need you to be willing to break the filabuster on, and we’ll leave you alone with the rest.”
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 12:04 pm
@Hannibal Lecter -
Ethics rules are — or atleast should be — designed to keep honest people from being corrupted.
Nothing is going to stop someone who really wants to break into your home from getting in, but you still lock the door.
The fact is that there is all of this attention on how weak the legislative inspector general is when the inspector generals of the state agencies are really in no stronger position and oversee functions of government where the odds of corruption are much, much higher because of the direct control over contracting and regulatory decisions. We just saw that at TRS, and it is going on right now at the Chicago Park District, where the lead investigator was fired.
The legislature is a distraction compared to the park district right now, where sexual assaults are being allegedly covered up and the investigation into them is being whitewashed.
Where are the #MeToo leaders now?
Comment by Juvenal Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 12:10 pm
= and would immediately cause the vast majority of legislators to retire.=
I would like to see some data on that.
I think 47th is correct. I would support and increase in compensation for this to take place if it is even necessary.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 12:10 pm
I would not conflate ethics reform with following the law. They are, and should be, two separate things.
Although I would agree that allowing unethical behavior can make criminal conduct far more likely. In the case of Arroyo I suspect that he didn’t start out acting criminally, but unethical behavior may have evolved into criminal conduct. We see that offered up as an excuse all the time when a politician says “I did nothing illegal.” I see that as an acknowledgement that they believe their behavior (merely a quid pro quo) may not have been ethical but wasn’t criminal.
The challenge, as Wilhour illustrates, is that neither party wants to draw that bright line dividing ethical and non-ethical behavior.
Comment by Pundent Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 12:11 pm
=if you ban outside income, the quality of candidates you would get would be very poor, in my opinion=
Actually they would be very rich, in my opinion.
Comment by Pundent Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 12:14 pm
Here’s my question — what is it you WANT? There are lots of ideas tossed around, but many of them don’t work in practice or don’t legally work.
For example, the General Assembly cannot by law ban outside income. The Constitution creates a part-time, citizen legislature.
The past three legislative inspector generals have asked for more power to initiate investigations of actions NOT RELATED to the person’s office or job, and they admitted that they’ve never been denied the ability to do so and in fact do these investigations now. What isn’t part of the story is that when an inspector general starts an investigation, the person has to get a lawyer. As an example, you’re forcing staffers making $50K to hire a lawyer over a complaint that they printed out something that may/may not have been political in nature for a legislator using state computer. or whether an employee ate lunch at their desk in violation of the personnel rules. THESE ARE ACTUAL REPORTS - both publicly released. Who is watching the watchdogs?
Comment by irony is fun Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 12:27 pm
===Here’s my question — what is it you WANT?===
As I mentioned in comments, he’s sponsored or co-sponsored 9 bills.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 12:29 pm
=== Actually they would be very rich, in my opinion. ===
You mean the candidates themselves would be rich? Or the quality of the candidates would be rich - meaning that if they were banned from having outside income they would somehow make better legislators?
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 12:40 pm
- Just Me 2 -
I’ve moved on.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 12:52 pm
=You mean the candidates themselves would be rich?=
I thought it was a bit obvious, but yes. If we ban outside income we’ll end up with candidates who are independently wealthy and can use the legislature as a mechanism to further their personal interests.
Comment by Pundent Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 1:04 pm
===Here’s my question — what is it you WANT?===
TL;DR Here’s my very general synopsis of Wilhour’s primary sponsor ethics bills - 3-year post service ban on lobbying, LIG does not need advance approval to start an investigation, LIG reports are made public, restricts GA members from lobbying local gov’t or from being compensated for representing local gov’t in state matters. (Again, I am being very general here, feel free to follow Rich’s link and read the bills.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 1:47 pm
== As I mentioned in comments, he’s sponsored or co-sponsored 9 bills. ==
My question was more rhetorical. He’s introduced a bunch of bills that don’t actually work or aren’t legal. There’s a reason these things haven’t become law. The ones he sponsored:
HB2841: You can’t legally impose a 3-year lobbying prohibition on public employees employees/appointees, and certainly can’t on members without a constitutional amendment.
HB2842: This allows publication of a report even if there isn’t a violation. There are due process issues.
HB2843: The portions of this bill applying lobbying to locals and prohibiting members from lobbying is in the bill he voted against.
HB2844: Limits the right of a legislator to have outside employment, and you can’t constitutionally do that.
HB2845: Most of this is included in the bill he voted against.
Comment by irony is fun Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 1:57 pm
With ethics, talk of a “bright line” is very misleading. There are no bright lines in ethics…some individuals might have a bright line, but try to find two people who agree. There is a lot of grey no matter where you look. A law, on the other hand, attempts to set a bright line. So, when a legislator looks at a bill, they logically consider how it would effect them, including the grey areas that might end up on the wrong side of the line OR be interpreted by someone else as being on the wrong side of the line. Lifting the limits on the LIG’s authority means putting your future in that person’s hands and allowing that one person to determine where the line is.
All of this grey area, line setting, and authority granting/restricting introduces complexity and risk. Getting a majority of legislators to agree on an incredibly complex (and grey) issue is difficult; that is why the legislation that passes both chambers appears to be weak - it sets the line in a place that a majority of legislators can be comfortable with. (It’s also why none of Wilhour’s ethics bills have more than two co-sponsors.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 2:01 pm
Here’s one;
Make the “Arroyo Rule” a rule of the Chamber(s)
Should be a slam dunk.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Sep 10, 21 @ 4:24 pm