Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Campaign notebook
Next Post: Live coverage
Posted in:
* Press release…
Dan Brady, the Republican nominee for Illinois Secretary of State, has released a summary of his tax returns for calendar years 2020 and 2021 and has called on his opponent to do the same.
“The Secretary of State’s office regulates the offer and sale of securities and the people who provide those services, so it’s crucial that voters know if candidates for the office have any potential conflicts of interest,” Brady said. “That’s why I’m releasing this summary of my tax returns so voters can see for themselves that I have no such conflicts. I call on my opponent to do the same thing, but so far he has steadfastly refused to do so. I wonder why.”
According to the Secretary of State’s website, the Illinois Securities Department regulates the offer and sale of securities pursuant to the Illinois Securities Law of 1953. The department registers securities offerings, broker-dealers, investment advisers and their sales-persons and representatives, loan brokers, business brokers and those who offer and sell business opportunities.
Brady is an Associate Director at the firm of Kibler Brady Ruestman Memorial Home and a part-time legislator. He submitted his Statement of Economic Interest form as required by law on March 7, 2022. Brady’s opponent, Alexi Giannoulias, filed the same form on March 14, 2022 with numerous attachments. To date, Giannoulias has refused to follow Brady’s lead and release his income tax information as well.
Brady’s tax summary reflects the fact that his wife Teri was without work for a period of time following a corporate layoff and drew the unemployment benefits to which she was entitled.
During a recent interview with the Illinois Associated Press Media Editors, Giannoulias blamed his wife for not disclosing their taxes. “My wife and I have some…ah…some things that she wants to keep…ah…private,” Giannoulias said. This is not the first time Giannoulias has refused to release his taxes.
The link to the Illinois Associated Press Media Editors interview is here: https://youtu.be/egv-XE-d_uo.
In a news segment posted on Facebook on May 19, 2022 by ABC 7 Chicago, Giannoulias refused to release his taxes. While being questioned in the Illinois Associated Press Media Editors interview about conflict of interests in investments Giannoulias said, “I think the only investments I have are just passive.”
The link to the ABC 7 interview is here: https://www.facebook.com/abc7chicago/videos/2935946843369210/.
Giannoulias has a history of questionable financial actions. Broadway Bank gave approximately $20 million to Russian mobsters while Giannoulias was a senior loan officer, and the bank was later seized by federal regulators. As Illinois State Treasurer, Giannoulias’ college savings fund, Bright Start, lost $150 million.
“The Secretary of State has a fiduciary duty to manage the state’s security division without impropriety,” Brady said. “Giannoulias can’t have it both ways. He needs to be truthful with voters.”
* Brady’s income summary is just that, and it’s sparse…
* The Question: Should the state mandate that all candidates, state and local, disclose at least part of their income tax returns? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:12 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Campaign notebook
Next Post: Live coverage
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I would be fine with requiring it for the statewide electeds, but I’m not sure we need it for local school boards, city councils, etc.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:14 pm
Oh, why–statewide electeds could have significant conflict of interest with decisions they make and people should be able to evaluate that. On the other hand, it’s just not worth it at the local level where it would be another reason to discourage people from running.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:16 pm
ArchPundit -
You’re right about school boards. However, anything dealing with zoning / liquor & pot should require disclosure(s).
AND … disclosure(s) should be all forms & attachments. Still think the 2008 GOP VP pick was made, in part, when one candidate’s 300+ page returns & attachments were vetted.
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:23 pm
I am fine with a voluntary, under-oath disclosure using a standard form, but not a mandatory one. Mandatory disclosure will further limit the number of willing candidates, and it provides minimal insight into conflicts of interest.
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:26 pm
Requiring candidates to disclose their income could dissuade the economically challenged from seeking office. Some may feel shame from society from having a lower income and decide not to run. With that, I think it is fine to release voluntarily if a candidate chooses.
Comment by JustAThought Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:28 pm
thechampaignlife -
Since Illinois has too many units of government / elected officials, perhaps a reduction in the number of candidates will make consolidations / reductions easier?
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:32 pm
No need for tax returns. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is fine.
Comment by Captain Obvious Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:37 pm
jeez Alexi. way to not do the minimum AND throw your wife under the bus like some 1950s white shirt and tie wearing business guy. release the kraken.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:41 pm
Yes. But only if the disclosed information is NOT allowed to be used in campaign ads. Out of context attack ads would be everywhere
Comment by don the legend Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:47 pm
Yes, disclose. 100%
Comment by New Day Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:51 pm
““My wife and I have some… ah… some things that she wants to keep… ah… private,” Giannoulias said.”
Understandable.
My wife and I do, too.
It’s one of the reasons why neither of us ran for Illinois Secretary of State.
Jeez.
We sure it’s too late to slip Jesse back onto the ballot?
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:52 pm
“My wife and I have some…ah…some things that she wants to keep…ah…private,”
Inquiring minds would like to know …
To the post - mandatory release of tax returns. Case in point, see above.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:52 pm
Should be required for state-wide executive branch offices. This would provide much more useful information than his tv commercials touting the fact that he likes to play basketball. Makes me wonder what Alexi has to hide.
Comment by Vader Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:55 pm
== To date, Giannoulias has refused to follow Brady’s lead==
Follow the lead when he just did it lol.
Comment by Big Dipper Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 2:59 pm
Make it mandatory for all candidates no matter the office.
The locals like school board and sewer districts are the farm teams. I want to know where people’s income comes from, especially those who have vote on approving contracts and spending.
Comment by Give Me A Break Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:02 pm
Sorry. Seems QOTD should why Danny waited til Oct 11 to raise issue. Meanwhile they should release returns and schedules.
Comment by ANNON'IN Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:17 pm
No, you’d lose too many candidates, especially in local elections versus state. As it is, some avoid running just because they don’t like the down side of campaigns. Bonus take: neither side really wants this.
Comment by ddp76 Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:17 pm
Yes. Let the sun shine.
Comment by Furtive Look Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:18 pm
Shouldn’t be required for any elected office. Voters don’t care and disclosures don’t matter. I consider taxes personal information that is similar to health records, in that it should only be disclosed if the candidate/official chooses to do so.
Comment by Matty Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:21 pm
No, leave it voluntary. I’m not so worried about the local races, and at the statewide level, allowing it to be voluntary provides voters with one more piece of data to use in deciding who they will support. Won’t provide your tax info? Probably won’t support you.
Comment by Johnny Tractor Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:29 pm
I would rather see candidates do a simple SOEI like officeholders do. You get a pretty clear picture of any conflicts of interest from a one pager listing stocks etc.
Comment by High Socks Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:43 pm
Voluntary depending on how you read a tax return a person could be successful or be considered a failure. It certainly has the potential to keep those out of office who would be good.
Comment by clec dcn Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:44 pm
I was on the fence between Gianoulnias and Brady. I’ll pick Brady based on this. If Giannoulnais past affiliates weren’t in the mob, it wouldn’t matter so much. yes to tax return disclosure for statewide office.
Comment by froganon Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:45 pm
NO. If you want to keep your business private you should be able to. I think the conflict of interest filings should be enough.
Comment by Groucho Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:46 pm
Yes, and under oath. Our school board have to sign a disclosure under penalty of perjury as do the principals and me. Why should these much more influential people be different?
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:48 pm
Never considered publicly disclosing personal financial information when running locally, would have declined in any case. Nobody’s business but mine. Better to use conflict of interest statement under oath with follow up investigation as needed. Except for the most highly engaged or those hoping for scandal, voters don’t particularly care about this. Voters rely on media and oppo to do voters’ work for them, not necessarily the most balanced approach.
A candidate might choose to disclose, but no, should not be required.
Comment by Flapdoodle Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:50 pm
No, the SEI suffices for elected officials and candidates. Keep it voluntary - tax returns are private…
“Taxpayer Bill of Rights 8 - Taxpayers have the right to expect that any information they provide to the IRS will not be disclosed unless authorized by the taxpayer or by law”
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 3:59 pm
It should be voluntary.I consider it a blackmark against G. that he isn’t doing it. Not that I won’t still vote for him but that has much more to do with the national GOP.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 4:08 pm
===will not be disclosed unless authorized by the taxpayer or by law===
I asked whether a new law should be enacted.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 4:11 pm
Only for statewide offices. Villages and small towns are having a hard enough time getting quality candidates now. Nobody wants their income disclosed in a gossipy small town.
When I was on the library board, an appointed position, I had to fill out a conflict of interest financial form every year, but it was not public and I did not have to list my income.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 4:27 pm
No to a new law. But Alexi blaming his wife for being less than open about their taxes is a goldmine for a negative ad.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 4:49 pm
Voted yes.
Why?
Any sunshine is better than no sunshine.
Having a general idea where income could be derived or a conflict occurring, and it *doesn’t* mean it’s disqualifying, is good too.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 4:55 pm
Rich, the mobster that (his late father, not the candidate) lent to was a Ukrainian, not a Russian.
Comment by Subtext Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 4:57 pm
I don’t think a tax disclosure law would pass constitutional muster. Article V gives the requirements to run for office and tax disclosure is not one of them.
Comment by Nellie Fox Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 4:59 pm
=== Article V gives the requirements===
It lays out eligibility, not requirements.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 5:05 pm
==But Alexi blaming his wife for being less than open about their taxes is a goldmine for a negative ad.==
Shouldn’t a woman have the same say as a man about whether her private info is released? It’s 2022.
Comment by Big Dipper Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 5:10 pm
To Alexi, as the aside,
If Alexi wins, then any thought to him feeling a need to be transparent or open, and given his past with banking, and that whole worm hole of awful…
===My wife and I have some… ah… some things that she wants to keep… ah… private,” Giannoulias said.===
Seedy might be a good reason to enact such sunshine.
Hiding behind a spouse is always a terrible way to show you are ethical too
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 5:17 pm
Yes. All offices.
The details Brady released himself aren’t really meaningful though. There’s no way to know if he has a conflict or not from those numbers.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 5:26 pm
I would be fine with a law making the various disclosure forms State employees have to fill out public for elected officials. Those are (or at least used to be) actually more intrusive than a lot of tax returns.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 5:37 pm
The answer to the question is very definitely yes.
Comment by Rufus T. Firefly Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 6:16 pm
How many in favor of this are willing to disclose that information about themselves?
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 6:48 pm
===How many===
Am I choosing to run for office, or…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 6:50 pm
I vote yes.
I value privacy but it is important to establish trust in our public officials. Tax returns that show what the sources of income are for our public officials (Assuming they’ve aren’t committing tax fraud by refusing to report their bribes as taxable income) and allows for further public discussion. Putting a public official on the payroll or having the public official as a partner in an entity or organization that directly benefits from their role is also something that should be publicly known.
Similarly, maybe people want to know how much richer the folks are that make policy decisions are than them.
Brady is releasing his returns because he wants to try to embarrass Alexi for his wealth, but what Brady doesn’t understand is that I don’t care how much money he makes when he files to run in the party of bigots, insurrectionists, and actively seeks to strip rights away from more than half of our country’s population.
But sure — lets see what Every Town’s mayor is earning in outside income. Though I would want to see more detail. Using Mr. Brady as an example, I want to know what the source of his income is with a bit more detail. Especially since his household income is well over his legislative salary.
Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 6:51 pm
Just when I was beginning to trust this guy. Don’t want to disclose - well then don’t run. When the public is your boss, ya gotta come clean.
Comment by Come on Lexi Tuesday, Oct 11, 22 @ 11:17 pm
$18,230 in unemployment compensation when there are oodles of help wanted signs out there?
Comment by someonehastosayit Wednesday, Oct 12, 22 @ 7:28 am
“$18,230 in unemployment compensation when there are oodles of help wanted signs out there?”
Just because there are jobs out there doesn’t mean that there is a job in her field that meets her needs. If I were out of work, I wouldn’t just take anything because it’s available - I’d wait until I found a job that fits my skills, schedule, benefits needs, etc. That’s why unemployment insurance exists - to give us time to look for a suitable new job without being burdened by lack of income during that time.
Comment by Techie Wednesday, Oct 12, 22 @ 7:53 am
I’d like to just see the sources of income. I don’t need to see how much.
Comment by Just Me 2 Wednesday, Oct 12, 22 @ 7:57 am
===Don’t want to disclose - well then don’t run.===
Seems like a great way to eliminate some decent candidates who value their privacy.
===When the public is your boss, ya gotta come clean.===
Does your boss know the details of your household’s income?
===Am I choosing to run for office, or…===
Rules for thee, but not for me. Everyone should run for office. I have multiple times. It gave me great insight into the difficulty of ballot access and getting out your message. We need more representative representation. Barriers for capable folks do not further that cause. If the only people we can choose to represent us are those who are willing to subject themselves to the meatgrinder, don’t be surprised if it’s always sausage for dinner.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Oct 12, 22 @ 3:20 pm
=== Barriers===
It’s only a barrier if the candidate from disclosing is too far.
Keep up, please.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 12, 22 @ 4:40 pm
=== If the only people we can choose to represent us are those who are willing to subject themselves to the meatgrinder, don’t be surprised if it’s always sausage for dinner.===
This is like chastising an HR department for vetting job applicants
Are you for real?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 12, 22 @ 4:42 pm
===value their privacy===
Keep up, please. Seems you don’t care about privacy. Care to share then? Oh, wait…
======Am I choosing to run for office===
Rules for thee, but not for me. Full circle.
Be well.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Oct 12, 22 @ 5:05 pm
=== Seems you don’t care about privacy. Care to share then? Oh, wait…===
It’s called running for PUBLIC office.
LOL
Wait for what, you having to learn about public office sacrifices?
=== Rules for thee, but not for me. Full circle===
Agreed, you are as dense as you were when you started this ridiculousness.
If I ran for office, a sacrifice would be to disclose.
It’s a sacrifice to run for office.
Either make it or sit down… if tax returns becomes a requirement.
lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 12, 22 @ 5:09 pm
===you having to learn===
===I have multiple times===
Been there, done that. Keep up, please.
===It’s a sacrifice to run for office.===
Barriers, more barriers. Bad actors love barriers. They keep the good ones out.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Oct 12, 22 @ 5:30 pm
=== Bad actors love barriers.===
Those *afraid* of sunshine are usually the bad actors.
If you’re projecting that you’re a bad actor by pretending it’s a barrier, it says more about you than maybe you might not want says.
===They keep the good ones out===
Job applicants who refuse to meet minimum requirements are rarely a good fit for the jobs.
If one lacks ethics to disclose, if it’s required, likely they could lack ethics in being open and transparent as an elected official.
How is it better with less sunshine, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 12, 22 @ 5:36 pm
=== Been there, done that. Keep up, please.===
You lack ethics. See, I’ve been caught up for a while to that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 12, 22 @ 5:37 pm
===You lack ethics===
Careful, DeVore might sue. But seriously, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I’d rather be known as naive than unethical, although both are ad hominem to the question of should disclose of tax returns be required.
I stand by my record of awards and honors, 60+ hours a month of volunteer service with a non-profit helping youth, volunteer service on local government boards, and volunteer mentoring families through the local Extension office. I file my Statements of Economic Interests as required, complete my annual ethics training and conflict of interest reports, and my salary is on the web for all to see as a public employee. I am not sure what more I can do, but if someone wants to swing by to scour my tax forms they can have at it. Or I can take an ethics quiz, maybe provide my thoughts on the trolley problem.
My position is not about me. My concern is that able candidates are unwilling to serve their community because of the invasive process to even be considered to serve, and we are worse off for that. Disclosure of private financial information is but one in a litany of barriers. Barriers which have thus far proven ineffective at eliminating conflicts of interest and corruption. But let’s add another one, one that some already do voluntarily with minimal results to support its effectiveness, and hope this does the trick. Or at least provides a gotcha when someone makes a mistake jumping through the dozen hoops so there is some campaign ad fodder to allege malfeasance. It smacks of the gatekeeping that the academic tenure and medical residency systems provide: prove you can endure hardship because we had to, not because it tests your ability to do your job.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Oct 13, 22 @ 11:38 am
===My concern is that able candidates are unwilling to serve their community because of the invasive process to even be considered to serve, and we are worse off for that.===
Public service is a sacrifice.
You make that quite clear with a whole paragraph to your honors and awards, the sacrifices you made to serve.
If one can’t be transparent, what exactly in selflessness will they bring to any position of public interest.
There’s no good argument that less sunshine is better, you make clear yourself that one could, if required, look at your returns. You acknowledge by that sentence it’s not intrusive, “have at it” as you say.
This is again disappointing…
===I’d rather be known as naive than unethical, although both are ad hominem to the question of should disclose of tax returns be required.===
If you claim to be naive, then that’s not how you remotely came across, it’s also not ad hominem if one decides, multiple times, to only see this “sunshine” as a barrier, as you dismiss the sunshine as a barrier, not a deterrent. I can’t help how you want your words framed.
===It smacks of the gatekeeping===
It’s sunshine to disinfect what could be a blinding to the public where one might have conflicts in their income, in theory.
This is not a quality take;
===prove you can endure hardship because we had to, not because it tests your ability to do your job.===
If one looks at sunshine as hardship, as you continually and purposely in your points, than ethics can be seen in your argument as a hardship too…. as not ONE time have you thought ethics should be a measure to public service, which is quite a thing.
===Barriers which have thus far proven ineffective at eliminating conflicts of interest and corruption.===
So asking for more sunshine won’t help?
I appreciate your time and service to the public.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 13, 22 @ 11:54 am
===it’s not intrusive===
Oh, it is quite intrusive. I am just willing to tolerate the intrusion. Other quite reasonable, kind, ethical people will not. Is their service any less honorable? I use the word service rather than sacrifice since, at least for me, the reward of helping others, building relationships, and tackling challenges are quite enough compensation. Sacrifice is what our first responders, soldiers, caregivers, educators, social workers, and so many more do. I just try to leave my little corner of the world a little better than I found it.
===no good argument that less sunshine is better===
There is already sun shining on finances. You want more, but when does it end? How about credit reports, account statements, and parent/child tax returns (required for FAFSA)? If we are going to get serious, at least let’s go all the way. But why stop at finances? Make them take a drug test, health exam, cardio stress test, DNA screening, psychological exam, and loyalty oath. Let’s see their driving record, school grades, SMS/browser history, long-form birth certificate, marital history, and bowling average. More sunshine is better, until you get skin cancer from all the sun exposure. Better add that to the list of things to check.
Obviously, I am taking it to the absurd extreme, but there is a line at some point where transparency is unnecessary and/or too invasive. Where do we draw it? Are ethics only defined by finances? Put another way, if our goal is honest, competent leadership, is our current piecemeal system of disclosures, certifications, nominations, oaths, and training effective at accomplishing that? Are there better ways? Is anyone even studying that? These questions are not directed at you, OW, but I appreciate your humoring my soapboxing, and I appreciate Rich providing a forum where average joe lurkers such as myself can get a glimpse at some of the sausage-making.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Oct 13, 22 @ 5:17 pm
===it is quite intrusive===
Friend, it’s not even a bill, lol
How do you know?
It’s a choice. It’s a sacrifice. Make it or not.
===I am taking it to the absurd extreme===
If I wholly ignore all your dorm room, you admittedly know why.
===when does it end?===
Slippery slope versus sunshine is again an awful look. There’s no good argument for less transparency. Public service is a sacrifice
Be well, we all soapbox. I’ve been known on occasion to bloviate to far greater (or worse… and worse?) than you.
OW
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 13, 22 @ 5:22 pm