?best is the enemy of the good. Many years ago, a wily legislative veteran shared that venerable wisdom with a rookie reporter, trying to explain why an admittedly flawed piece of legislation still merited passage.
More than three decades of watching state government convinced the cub — now a grizzled columnist — that the old-timer was right.
His insight comes to mind now, listening to Gov. Rod Blagojevich promising to “improve” the most significant campaign finance reform measure ever to clear the Illinois General Assembly.
The legislation — HB 824 — would strike at the heart of the state’s notorious and longstanding pay-to-play reputation by restricting campaign contributions from major state contractors to the officials who award the contracts. Under its terms, any entity or its affiliates that has or seeks state work worth more than $50,000 would be barred from fattening the campaign coffers of the state officer awarding the contract or of any candidate for that office.
Major contractors also would have to register with the State Board of Elections, which would place the information on a public searchable database linking contributions and contracts.
The measure cleared the legislature without opposition — 56-0 in the Senate and 114-0 in the House. But the governor complained that the bill didn’t go far enough. “I think we have an opportunity with that vehicle in my hands to do sweeping things, potentially. I think we can possibly do a whole series of things.”
And that’s where the inherent danger of “perfecting” something that’s merely really, really worthwhile comes in. Sure, the measure says nothing about large contributions to state party organizations, which can pass them on to statewide candidates. It’s silent about legislative leaders whose political committees take in millions of dollars that are passed on to rank-and-file lawmakers, tightening the leaders’ caucus control. It makes no mention of lawmakers voting on issues that pose conflicts of interest.
In short, HB 824 isn’t the final word on ethical reform; it’s not even as strong as an earlier version that cleared the House last year only to languish in a Senate committee.
But the bill represents a carefully crafted compromise between reformers and folks who prefer the status quo, a considered judgment of how far down the path to ethical government to push before the effort proves fruitless.
If the governor rewrites the measure, for instance, to hamstring the leaders’ ability to bankroll legislative campaigns, lawmakers would have a choice to accept his changes, override his amendatory veto or see the bill die. The legislative leadership isn’t likely to accept such fetters, so the best hope would be for an override, which even if successful would allow the governor to claim that the bad old lawmakers rejected his more sweeping plan. At worst, the governor’s tinkering could torpedo the measure altogether because lawmakers wouldn’t address the issue until after the November election, when they might find voters’ concern about pay-to-play less compelling.
History shows clearly that voter concern is the key ingredient in moving the General Assembly to enact reform legislation, forcing the political calculation that doing nothing and keeping the status quo carries more risk at the polls than changing the comfortable way of doing business just enough to mollify
the electorate. And progress always is incremental.
When lobbyist registration and disclosure requirements were tightened
in 1993, for instance, the reforms — championed by then Secretary of State George Ryan — followed newspaper reports that lobbyists officially reported spending less than $24,000 in seeking legislative approval for a land-based Chicago casino, while their Las Vegas bosses said they spent more than $5 million to promote the idea.
While those changes were hailed as the most significant ethics package in years, the law is far from perfect. The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, for example, has proposed changes that include requiring lobbyists to disclose what they charge for their services and whom they talk to while lobbying. The reform group also wants the law to cover lobbying efforts before boards, agencies, commission boarding authorities and retirement funds.
Similarly, lawmakers approved campaign finance reform in 1998, including a prohibition on personal use of campaign funds, following newspaper reports of legislators using campaign war chests to buy homes and cars. The package included a ban on gifts to public officials, coming in the wake of federal corruption convictions involving a company’s gifts of luxury food and travel to state officials overseeing contract changes favorable to the company.
Again, the legislation was not a cure-all — some of the ethical provisions were tightened five years later. But it was a compromise that had as one of its greatest virtues unanimous support from legislative leaders.
Sponsors of the current ban on pay-to-play practices acknowledge that the measure is directed at Blagojevich, whose administration is under federal scrutiny for its contracting and hiring practices. Indeed, “all other constitutional officers already have policies against accepting campaign contributions from businesses contracting with their offices,” the leaders of seven reform groups reported in a letter urging the governor to sign the bill.
Just last month, a federal jury found one of the governor’s most prolific fundraisers, businessman Tony Rezko, guilty of 16 corruption charges, including money laundering, mail and wire fraud, and bribery.
Trial testimony included an allegation that Blagojevich discussed state contracts, investment banking opportunities and legal work that would be available to campaign contributors.
And media accounts of state contracts, jobs, and appointments going to major donors have become so common they’ve almost lost their news value.
Forgoing the temptation to “improve” HB 824 in favor of signing it into law would help counter the widespread suspicion that Illinois government is for sale. As another old proverb counsels, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” Blagojevich should heed it.
The governor’s tinkering could torpedo the measure ... because lawmakers wouldn’t address the issue until after the November election, when they might find voters’ concern about pay-to-play less compelling.
Charles N. Wheeler III is director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
Illinois Issues, July/Aug. 2008
