I'll let you guys decide how you feel after reading this. I still don't feel any better than I did yesterday. I'm still disappointed in 'Ms. So-called Progressive Democrat from the 7th district.'
Dear Neighbor,Blognotes: Chicago Tribune Editorial: Contempt for voters.
The ongoing corruption trial and recall amendment dominated the news and discussions in Springfield this week. As you have likely seen in the news, the recall amendment did not pass the Senate, but an ethics bill that will ban pay-to-play politics in Illinois has been agreed to by both the House and Senate.
Recall Amendment (SJRCA0070) and Impeachment
The proposed Constitutional Amendment for Recall needed 36 votes to pass out of the Senate, and failed with a vote of 33 yeses, 19 nos, and 2 presents. I am alarmed at recent accusations in the federal government's corruption case involving the Blagojevich Administration, including possibly the Governor himself, but I voted no on the recall amendment because it is unlikely to remove this Governor from office, is fundamentally bad public policy for Illinois, and the State already has a better mechanism - impeachment - to address wrong doing by our elected officials.
To begin with, passing a Recall Constitutional Amendment may not actually result in the removal of Gov. Blagojevich. Whether the Recall Amendment can be retroactively applied to remove a sitting Governor from Office is an unresolved question of law. Even if Governor Blagojevich is eligible to be recalled, it would involve many expensive and time consuming steps to actually execute a recall. At the end of the day, angry voters might reduce his term by a matter of months, maybe a year.
Moreover, recall as a permanent part of the Illinois State Constitution overly politicizes future public policy discussions. Voters have regular opportunities to hold our elected officials accountable. Recall is an anti-democratic mechanism that disenfranchises the planned and larger base of regular voters in favor of special interests that can threaten recall and the smaller vote totals associated with special elections. More disturbingly, it will have a naturally chilling effect on politician's willingness and ability to tackle important but potentially controversial issues (in an environment where our elected officials are already too hesitant to vote their consciences in my estimation). Beyond these damaging public policy implications, recall is obviously expensive, time-consuming, and distracts our leaders from other vital concerns such as chronic budget problems. Only 18 states provide for Recall of state elected officials.
The existing impeachment process can efficiently remove Governor Blagojevich from office if the illegal corruption charges that have been alleged are proven. Unlike recall, impeachment has no chilling effect on the legal acts of future public officials. Moreover, the existing procedures for impeachment can be carried out by the House and Senate at far less expense and in less time. Impeachment is the tool to address wrongdoing; regular elections are the tool to vote out of office politicians with whom we are displeased.
As the newest State Democratic Senator in Illinois and a past supporter of Governor Blagojevich, I am saddened and troubled by recent public accusations that the Governor is guilty of vast public corruption. I am certainly ready to conduct my Constitutional duties to determine if laws were broken by our Governor if the House votes to impeach him.
Banning Pay-to-Play Contracts in Illinois (HB824)
This week the Senate and the House reached agreement on a revised pay to play ethics Bill that will accomplish our goal of banning pay-to-play in the State (House Bill 824). This bill:
Bans political contributions from businesses that have contracts of $50,000 or more with any statewide officeholder (Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Comptroller, or Treasurer) for a period of the officeholder's term or two years after the end of the contract, whichever is longer;
* Bans political contributions from businesses to challengers for those statewide officers;
* Bans businesses with pending bids from making contributions during the entire bid process;
Requires all businesses with contracts over $50,000 to register with the State Board of Elections before they can bid for a contract. The State Board of Elections will maintain a searchable database that lists relevant political contributions by these businesses and their associates.
I am a chief sponsor of this Bill and believe it is an important step in improving the culture of corruption in Illinois. That said, I do believe it is just a step. We have much further work to do, including placing limits on campaign contributions and requiring full disclosure by lobbyists regarding their contracts.
We have a great deal of work to change the culture of corruption that eptimizes Illinois government today. I will continue to advance sensible proposals that fight corruption and allow us to believe in the honor of government service again.
4 comments:
On this one I think that Steans may be right. Recall is difficult. We tend to get caught up in the specifics of the politico in question who SHOULD be recalled without serious consideration of the long-term and unintended consequences such legislation would lead to. Any recall legislation would likely have the effect of any group of people who can gather enough signatures being able to recall any politician for whatever partisan reason -- at great TAXPAYER expense and undermining democracy. Bad governors like Blago can be removed by impeachment (what is the IL legislature waiting for here exactly?) or by the feds for cause. Voters do have recourse not to re-elect the cretins. In the case of Blago boy, IL voters got what they voted for. I don't feel particularly bad that they are now suffering for their choice. He was a cretin before the last election and he's one now. It's too bad it took the idiot voters until now to wake up and smell the coffee. If they want a divorce, they'll have to wait til election time. For my part, I've paid for their dummy votes by suffering Blago; I'm not keen to pay again because now they want a do over because they were dummies. Caveat emptor. I'm ok with Steans reminding us voters that maybe we shouldn't be dumb asses about our votes.
No, Blago can never be impeached because he's bought off Emil Jones, who has control of the senate because of its bizarre & arcane rules.
The same rules that killed recall.
Only two governors have been recalled in the last 60 years: Evan Mecham in Arizona, who was a mentally ill crook & Gray Davis in California who had the bad luck to be in the gunsights of both a slimeball millionaire Congressman named Darryl Issa who thought the recall would make him governor & of course Schwarzenegger who double-crossed Issa & ran & won.
Blago won because the GOP had & still has a total meltdown in Ill. & because Daley hated Vallas so much he supported Blago in the primary in 2002 against Blago. Now there was a case of beware of what you wish for, you might get it!
Blago won in 2006 because he defined Topinka before she could define herself, an always fatal mistake in politics!
Although I disagree with Sen. Steans' vote and her explanation, I think the Tribune was nonetheless wrong to have singled her out they way they did (Recall? Talk to the Senate, April 28, 2008). The Tribune has known her position or, at least, her likely position for at least six or months now. To get the vapors about it now seems unfair and needlessly unkind.
Also, I believe it is incorrect to think that the drive for the recall amendment was just about this Governor.
The assertion that "It's not right to make this about one person" is problematic because, well, it's not true.
It's not just Blagojevich. It's Blagojevich and Ryan and Jones and years of legislation going into black holes, only to be restored to gravity and light when money---lots of it---is sprinkled on it.
It also begs the question: Would the legislature spend ANY political energy to get a recall amendment done under a good and functioning Governor?
Of course not.
Sen. Steans is right, however, about the time line. There was never--ever--any chance that it would result in the removal of this Governor.
But that wasn't really the point.
HB1 et al no more puts an end to pay-to-play politics than the recall amendment can remove this Governor. For example, the bills' provisions would do nothing to redress the Resko-eque abuses that have occurred in this administration.
No, the value of recall, of HB1 etc. is--at least in the near term—-symbolic. It’s a positive acknowledgment that it is the people--not the Speaker, not the Senate President, not the Governor--who hold the power and are to be heeded.
Lastly, I think the evidence provided by the other states with a recall provision is informative. Special interests aren't exactly running around willy-nilly removing elected officials. That this might occur in Illinois doesn’t undermine the rationale for recall amendment; rather it strengthens it.
wow, i didnt see developers banned from donating to aldermen, business up for licenses banned from donating, hmmm, i guess they are only worried about state contacts, not our 49th ward local criminal and others like him.
Post a Comment