This could take a while
Friday, Sep 19, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* OK, after some confusion yesterday, there will be both a “special” session on Monday and a “regular” session. The regular session means that bills beyond the override of governor Blagojevich’s amendatory veto of the ethics bill can be considered. And that means that other veto override motions will likely have to be dealt with and that there will be huge pressure to stop the pending closures of state parks and historic sites. This might take a couple of days…
Cindy Davidsmeyer said that other issues may be on the table as well. “When you convene a regular session day, a variety of issues can be dealt with,” she said.
More on that…
The distinction between regular and special sessions could be important.
Lawmakers can take up only what the governor puts on their agenda in a special session, which this time will be ethics reform. By calling a regular session, the Senate can — and will face pressure to — consider other important issues: dealing with the governor’s vetoes on several bills, reversing deep budget cuts and approving a lease of the state lottery to fund public works projects.
* I’m not sure whether the first part of this sentence is completely true…
In a separate move that left many lawmakers shaking their heads, Blagojevich also issued a call Thursday for a special session to start at 1 p.m. Monday.
They are certainly shaking their heads, but it’s doubtful that this was, indeed, a “separate move” by a governor acting alone…
Blagojevich spokeswoman Kelley Quinn said the governor and Jones had spoken and that the governor was the only one with authority to call both chambers back on the ethics issue.
* And it may not end on Monday or Tuesday…
Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero suggested the pay-to-play prohibition is yesterday’s news and challenged lawmakers to do more.
“This whole pay-to-play thing, it’s all ready been done. What we’re hoping is the General Assembly does more than just agree with the governor,” he said.
And if they don’t, he warned they might grow accustomed to seeing the Capitol in the coming weeks.
“The governor’s willing to call special sessions as long as it takes,” Guerrero said.
The ethics bill override would restore a simple ban on most state contractors giving money to the governor’s campaign fund. The governor claims his latest executive order will cover that problem, but the EO is so broad that it’s almost undoubtedly illegal.
But, the governor threatened special sessions earlier this summer on education and never followed through, so Guerrero’s threat may be empty.
* The governor has his own ethics bill, which is a compilation of his original amendatory veto language, but good government groups oppose it…
“There is a great deal of consensus that it is an overbroad piece of legislation.” [ said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.]
And ethics proponents in the General Assembly say the language is nowhere near complete…
“It’s not ready for prime time,” said state Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat and sponsor of the initial ethics deal. Harmon said he’ll persist with an override of the governor’s changes.
The governor’s people have said the same thing in recent days.
* The decision to call the GA back to town will impact several campaigns, including Halvorson’s..
Locally, Jones’ refusal to go back into session also became an issue in the 11th District Congressional race of Democrat Debbie Halvorson, the Senate Majority Leader who has been taking flack from her Republican opponent Marty Ozinga for an apparent lack of leadership.
“I am extremely pleased the Senate will return to special session to override the governor’s veto of the ban on pay-to-play in Illinois,” Halvorson said in a statement. “I’m glad Sen. Jones finally decided to respect the wishes of the members of his caucus and the people of Illinois.
* Related…
* Barack calls, ethics vote a go
* Tribune editorial: The ethics show returns
* Obama phone call leads to Jones reversal on ethics bill
* Ill. Senators To Vote On Disputed Ethics Bill
* Senate to Reconvene: Emil Jones
* Hope not lost for Dana-Thomas
* Question and answer time with the gov’s spokesman
* Parks, prison news not good enough
- The Doc - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 9:41 am:
The Obama phone call to Jones charade seems premeditated and contrived. Jones’ very words are evidence of such:
“…only at the request of my friend, Barack Obama”.
Total disregard for his caucus and constituents, as if they were nothing more than a mere nuisance. But when the almighty potential sugar daddy calls, he begrudgingly concedes. Not a word in support of ethics reform, or good government, or the other usual rhetoric about listening and responding to the will of the people. I suppose I take a bit of comfort in knowing that he’s a straightforward slimeball.
IMHO, this may be his most despicable act as a member of the state senate.
- jessica - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 9:50 am:
Would contacting senators and urging them to bring up the parks issue help here?
- Leave a light on George - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 9:55 am:
Who’s on first. What’s on second. Third base - I don’t know.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:04 am:
OK, it is clear they want to govern by the Keystone Cops theory of government which is fine as long as they keep the parks open but Obama might want to place another call to the captain of Keystone and tell him that if he calls anymore special sessions during election crunch time he’ll be doing time in Alaska.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:06 am:
I don’t think they can leave town without fixing the parks and historic sites issue. I think Blago will play ball on that — maybe make an announcement at the Dana Thomas house or take a trip with his kids to one of the parks. Somebody must have some PR sense there by now.
- Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:09 am:
Wait a minute. Obama had to be called to the carpet constantly by the media to even make the lousy phone call. And you can bet it all boiled down to Obama’s “reformer” image, which is the sole reason he called, and the sole reason Jones assented. This “Obama as Savior” crap has to stop. “Would you like a pillow, Your Holiness?”
- GoBearsss - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:09 am:
Rich, I don’t know if you ever put the executive order up for people to read themselves, but I found it here.
It essentially prohibits agencies from entering into contracts with entities who have made contributions.
I don’t see what would be unconstitutional about that. Gov has the right to prohibit what his agencies can and can’t do.
If you look at the original ethics bill and this, they take two completely different legal approaches to the contribution ban - one focuses on the contractor, the other focuses on the agency.
If you could maybe ask someone to outline WHY they think it is unconstitutional, rather than some BS argument that it is just “too broad,” that might be more helpful.
- Dan S. a Voter and Cubs Fan - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:11 am:
More evidence that the right hand has NO clue what the left hand is doing.
- GoBearsss - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:11 am:
Additionally, it would be helpful for these “reform” groups to come out before Monday to explain specifically WHY the broad ethics package is bad.
Otherwise, it sounds like the same old excuse for inaction.
Generally, I get it - if they show support for the Gov’s AV, they think that would risk their ethics bill that they worked on. Hopefully, they realize that it is going to get overridden anyway, so they can start focusing on the next step, and stop playing defense.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:12 am:
Gobearsss, there is nothing in the Illinois constitution that gives the governor the rigtht to issue such a broad EO.
- Greaseless - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:18 am:
I agree with Doc, totally premeditated and contrived.
It’s all about control and votes for Obama.
Doesn’t the liberal media realize this affects them too?
- GoBearsss - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:19 am:
Look, I won’t pretend to know the extent of case law when it comes to the use of executive orders. It seems to me that, by executive order or directive or whatever, the Gov has significant leeway when it comes to the execution of Illinois government, and can require agencies to take certain steps in procurement.
For example, how about this executive order from 2005 - requiring a Sweatshop Free Procurement Policy. That seems to be the same concept.
- Princess - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 10:49 am:
wordslinger “I don’t think they can leave town without fixing the parks and historic sites issue. I think Blago will play ball on that — maybe make an announcement at the Dana Thomas house or take a trip with his kids to one of the parks. Somebody must have some PR sense there by now.”
The games continue. Yesterday’s email stated that the layoff meetings are now set for the 29th and 30th of September. States that packages wll be overnighted Monday (22nd) for arrival by Tuesday (23rd). This will be the 3rd set of packages. But I’m done making and canceling arrangemnets for a Springfield stay. Think I’ll just send the husband down with a tent and let him overnight in the nearest state park or sleep on a bench outside the building. While I realize the cost of sending and resending and even still resending packages out is not all that much in the larger scope of things, but geez, soon I’ll be able to rewallpaper a large closet with the amount of paper that will have arrived. Nothing like being a pawn in the gov’s underending rounds of games.
- Bassman - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:00 am:
Enough already. The only reponsible thing to do with IDNR, IDOT and other cabinet level agencies is to take them away via legislation whereby a commission oversees their operations, budget and critical issues. This has been done in other states…not without issue, but clearly takes some of the political extortion out of state assets and agencies.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 11:48 am:
One provision of the EO on ethics is clearly unconstitutional: it includes members of the General Assembly in the definition of “state officers” to which the EO applies. The courts have ruled in the past that executive orders apply ONLY to members of the executive branch.
- GoBearsss - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 12:39 pm:
Anonymous - hence the difference I was discussing between the two approaches.
It doesn’t prohibit members of the general assembly from accepting contributions from contractors.
It prohibits contractors from giving to members of the general assembly.
The prohibition is on the contractor related to their qualification for procurement. So, no mandate on the general assembly.
- Captain America - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:17 pm:
As Alice declared “Cuckoo-land” keeps getting “curiouser and curiouser.”
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:28 pm:
Not so fast Bearsss.
The Illinois Supreme Court has said that the “supreme executive power” of the governor and his responsibility for “faithful execution of the laws” do NOT allow him to establish new legal requirements by executive order. With regard to any agency not under his jurisdiction, he can only enforce laws that already exist.
(From “Illinois Constitution Annotated for Legislators,” comments on Article V, Section
- Just the Facts - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:31 pm:
See Buettell v. Walker 59 Ill.2d 146
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:33 pm:
Moreover, in 1973 the Ill Supreme Court struck down provisions of an EO requiring persons doing business with the state to file economic disclosure statements. The court said that while the governor had the authority to require economic statements from people whom he appointed, or who worked under him, he did NOT have the authority to impose those requirements on persons outside the executive branch. See the “Annotated Constitution”’s comments on Article 13, section 2.
- GoBearsss - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:37 pm:
Will be an interesting debate if any of the constitutionals decide to sue. Don’t know who it would be, though.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 1:47 pm:
I take it that Buettell vs. Walker was the case I just referred to (which wasn’t mentioned by name in the book)
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 19, 08 @ 8:21 pm:
However it plays out, it would be interesting to see if any vendors decide to sue. What about their 1st Amendment Rights?
Seriously, I’m just for full disclosure. I don’t think you can truly limit money in politics. With the Internet, I think you can reduce the need for it. Viral is a lot cheaper than TV and radio; emails are a lot cheaper than direct mail.
Our home-town change agent is pushing past the 300 million mark for the presidential. That wasn’t all bake sale money.