1. - wizard - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 2:58 pm:

   I do not support 4, 5, and 7.




2. - bored now - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:05 pm:

   i was surprised to see as much support of reform as the results showed…




3. - Anonymous45 - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:09 pm:

   I do not support 1,3,6, and 8…2,4,5,7, and 9 get to the crux of corruption and influence…BTW, I also support recall for all elected politicians in IL, and term limits for Legislative leaders…




4. - A Citizen - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:13 pm:

   To borrow a phrase shamelessly - ” We don’t want No reforms that Nobody sent”.




5. - trafficmatt - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:24 pm:

   Definitely support #5. As a former consultant, I can tell you that it gets really tiring getting “invitations” from politicians, when you KNOW it means that you won’t get a project unless you “voluntarily” give. Most consultants that want to be judged on their merits alone would support that.

   In addition, 2 others. These may not be legal - I would appreciate any comments on whether they are or not.

   1) Severely limit or ban contributions from one politician to another one using the first’s campaign fund. Too much opportunity for a senior politician to “own” a junior politician who they have helped.

   2) Stiffer rules on what a pol can do with campaign money after they have left office. Less desire for some to build up “war chests”.




6. - Anon - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:24 pm:

   Why aren’t limits on campaign spending part of the debate?




7. - Boscobud - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:42 pm:

   None of this is going to get done. Who are we kidding? This is Chicago Politics and even if we voted this in politicians would find loop holes and do it anyway.




8. - downstate dem - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:43 pm:

   I rather like al of them, to varying degrees. No. 5 is probably unconstitutional. But the real problem, is there isn’t an elected official willing to take a cut in their cut of the pie. They like and want the money.

   I don’t feel any support in either house to do anything, no matter if every single citizen in the state spoke for reform.




9. - Truthful James - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:43 pm:

   1. No public official shall hold more than one job in the public sector.

   The second job is usually the way that money is earned for one’s own campaign funds and for cross funding other candidates through attendance at fund raisers.

   2. Campaign advertising shall be permitted for only the sixty days prior to the primary and prior to the election, There will be a moratorium on “broadcast” constituent mailings/emailings for the prior one hundred eighty days.

   There will be no effective reform, by the way until voter approval is required (referenda) for any increase in tax rate — property, sales, utility, income.




10. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:47 pm:

    1) Yes.
    2) No. Too ‘Squishy.’ Basically requires you to disclose the names of everyone who is raising money on your behalf, which is just another way of volunteering for your campaign. What’s next? Requiring disclosure of everyone who walks ten precincts or more?

    3) Yes. Absolutely and completely.

    4) No. Without public financing, contribution limits are a leg-up to incumbents and millionaires.

    5) No. Lobbying (petitioning government) is a constitutionally protected right.

    6) No. Elections when many families are vacationing don’t make sense, and pushing the primary date back until after session ends will make it VERY difficult to pass bipartisan yet controversial legislation.

    7) Absolutely yes.

    8) What more power does the State Board need? Probably not.

    9) See #8 above.

    My modest proposal: Ban all OUT-OF-STATE campaign contributions (with an exception for immediate family), just as federal campaigns ban contributions by foreign nationals.

    According to the State Board of Elections, Friends of Blagojevich raised more than $10 MILLION from out-of-state sources. Many appear to be corporations with an interest in state contracts.

    I can think of MANY reasons to permit corporations headquartered in Illinois to make contributions to candidates. One could argue, for example, that Caterpillar, INC. (as much as I disagree with them), has legitimate interests in ensuring the Peoria area is well-represented.

    But $60,000 from Bulk Petroleum Corporation in Mequon, Wisconsin?




11. - Mr. Wizard - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 4:11 pm:

    As long as we’re dreaming, here is my 3-pronged plan:
    1) Pass the AG’s FOIA bill; paired with,
    2) Sensible campaign shortening (a la above), including some free airtime for candidates; (Since the IPA is screaming for #1, they should trade #2 for it), and
    3) Cut Leg. salaries by 2/3.

    The Citizen legislature returns! Dare I ask for multi-member districts?




12. - wordslinger - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 4:16 pm:

    –Why aren’t limits on campaign spending part of the debate?–

    There’s the rub.




13. - Anonymous45 - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 4:24 pm:

    Word: you must work for a legislator…




14. - bob the builder - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 6:00 pm:

    1. real time = real expensive, campaigns would now need to have treasurers on call all the time instead of just around filing time
    2. Not a fan at all - if I am just talking to some friends about a candidate and they donate am I now a bundeler?
    6. June is possibly the worst month - graduations, little league, student internships, vacations, everyone is on the move all the time.
    7. we can’t afford public funding right now

    Everything else sounds like a good idea




15. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 9:46 pm:

    Great post, great comments. Thanks Wonkish.




16. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Wednesday, May 27, 09 @ 8:37 am:

    1) Requiring year-round, real-time submission of campaign disclosure filings

    Good Idea, but it would be better to set a time frame when a contribution comes in and is reported. 2 weeks etc.
    2) Requiring disclosure of campaign contribution “bundlers”
    No.
    3) Requiring greater disclosure of those making independent expenditures on behalf of a campaign
    Yes
    4) Imposing limits on contributions to political campaigns from all sources
    Yes
    5) Banning campaign contributions from lobbyists and trusts, and extending bans on contributions from state employees, entities seeking state contracts and entities engaged in regulated industries

    YES YES YES
    6) Holding primary elections in June
    Bad month. July?
    7) Enacting a pilot project for public financing of judicial elections in 2010, with an eye toward expanding the program to elections of statewide legislative officials and Constitutional posts

    Great Idea, but the State Cant afford this.

    8) Enhancing powers of the Illinois State Board of Elections

    Yes, make the penalties more harsh.

    9) Creating more robust discovery and enforcement mechanisms

    Yes

    Also, Term Limits for All Offices and Recall




17. - Springfield Insider - Thursday, May 28, 09 @ 11:24 am:

    Since the state is broke, why not prohibit retirees from returning to work in their former state agency and getting pay up to $30k to do what? are the icumbents incompetent? The former Deputy Director at the Department of Human Rights returns every year and collects over $30k for two months work!!!

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.