Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Warning: Rocky road still ahead

State parks and historic sites would stay open. Substance abuse prevention and treatment services would avoid losing $55 million in state funding and the same amount in federal funding. State funding for human services would return to the levels approved by the legislature in May. The same would apply to the constitutional officers, which could hire back employees already laid off. Mass transit districts would receive more than $36 million in reimbursements for having to provide free rides to seniors and people with disabilities. But there’s a big “if.”

That will happen if Gov. Rod Blagojevich signs a plan approved by both chambers. The House approved the budget restorations earlier this month, and the Senate followed suit on Tuesday. But there’s no telling how long this could take. The Senate could send the approved measures to the governor’s desk right away, or it could wait for whatever reason. And once the governor does get the measures, he still has 60 days to sign them into law, veto them completely or send them back to the legislature with changes. Given the timeline or lack thereof, it’s questionable whether state parks and historic sites will close in October and November as scheduled.

All agree that the ball is in the governor’s court.

Rep. Mark Beaubien, a Barrington Hills Republican and budget negotiator for his caucus, expressed a concern about Blagojevich's next move. “Now he has the ability to take the veto pen and play games and eliminate programs to try to make different people look bad.”

Brian Williamsen, a Blagojevich spokesman, said the governor’s office has to review all of the details and added that it’s too early to speculate on a timeline. Williamsen could not say whether the governor would delay closing parks and historic sites if the House and Senate plan had potential to become law.

The House and Senate agreed to sweep unused money from the special state funds to collect about $221 million, which is included in SB 790. The package also would create a new fund, dubbed the “Budget Relief Fund,” so that the money could not be used for anything other than restoring the budget cuts spelled out in the spending bill, SB 1103.

The 15 votes against the fund sweeps were among Senate Republicans, who said there is no guarantee that the governor will sign the measure and, if he does, that he’ll release the money as intended.

The deal to accept the House’s version of the plan came only after much of the day was spent behind closed doors negotiating an even larger plan that would have increased funding for various programs, but the wish list ballooned out of control and eventually collapsed at the last minute. Literally at the same time, the Illinois Department of Revenue issued new information that revenue projections are coming in lower than anticipated. Income and sales tax revenues, as well as other tax revenues, are coming in below the levels on which this year’s budget was predicated. The difference: $200 million.

That slightly deflates the cushion that the governor has when distributing money throughout the fiscal year. But Rep. Gary Hannig, a Litchfield Democrat and budget negotiator for his caucus, said the $221 million in budget restorations that advanced to the governor’s desk Tuesday pay for themselves by transferring the same amount from special funds.

Sen. Donne Trotter, the Senate Democrats' budget negotiator, looked to the regularly scheduled fall session in November. “If there’s still an appetite to do more, then we can do more at that time.”

But the question of what the governor would do loomed like a black cloud. “There [are] no assurances — nothing that I can give — other than we know that there is a need, a necessity to get this done,” Trotter said. “And I think that we saw that, at least, in a rare occasion, the entire Senate that is present today voted for it. So we know at least what the legislators would like to see done. … It’s up to him of what he’s going to do otherwise.”

Which message are you sending?
Building on yesterday’s ethics reforms, the state Senate advanced a more sweeping measure that the governor tried but failed to advance through his executive powers. All GOP senators voted in support of the measure, five Democrats voted present and one Democrat voted against it.

Sen. Don Harmon, voted “present." The Oak Park Democrat sponsored yesterday’s successful pay-to-play ban, but he opposed the measure containing the governor’s proposals today because it sends the wrong message. He warned that approving a bill that almost everyone agrees is fatally flawed would undermine the behind-the-scenes negotiations already happening between both chambers and the governor’s office. He said it also could give the impression that the Senate is more interested in claiming that it advanced comprehensive ethics reforms than it is in ironing out the complicated and significant details with the House.

“Let’s negotiate this bill before we start throwing bombs across the building,” Harmon said before the Senate voted to approve the measure.

Fifty senators disagreed with Harmon and said approving the new reforms contained in SB 780 sends a different message: The Senate is ready to enact comprehensive reforms that could help regain the public’s trust during these troubling times. (That message is more likely to sound better on campaign literature landing in voters’ mailboxes from now until the November 4 elections.)

The legislation would enact more limits to political campaign contributions and shine more sunlight on who makes money off of whom. It would prohibit businesses with significant state contracts from donating to legislators and statewide political parties, prevent legislators from working in numerous government jobs as a second source of income, require more disclosure of legislators’ lobbying activities and reform the way the legislature enacts its own pay raises.

Through a news release, the governor applauded the Senate’s action. “This vote sends a message to the people that the tired tradition of double dipping, the fraudulent way pay raises are doled out and the deceitful way legislators who moonlight as attorneys can hide their clout-heavy client list should be a thing of the past.” His news release urged the House to continue the momentum and approve the more sweeping ethics reforms.

The Campaign for Political Reform, a Chicago-based good government group, testified against the legislation last night, saying it was fatally flawed and constituted more “political rhetoric” during the election season. But Cindi Canary, director of the think tank, said she has been working with other legislators and the governor’s office for the past few weeks on the governor’s ethics language.

The Senate president addressed the whole chamber but, at more than one point, seemed to speak directly to Harmon and Sen. Ira Silverstein, a Chicago Democrat who also voted “present.” (In the Illinois legislature, a “present” vote is intended to demonstrate opposition a flawed bill but support of the concept.) Both Harmon and Silverstein also happen to be among the names floating around as contestants to be the next Senate president when Jones’ term ends in January.

Jones said senators who oppose SB 780 want to either protect someone else or preserve their fundraising abilities so they can run for higher office. Silverstein later said that Jones’ comments are part of a political game and won’t hurt other negotiations. “But enough is enough,” he said. “You have to stand up for what you believe in.”

The only senator voting against the legislation was Sen. Mike Jacobs, an East Moline Democrat who often speaks out against Blagojevich. He repeated earlier sentiments that “the cancer of Illinois is the governor.” Jacobs made the point that the governor’s ethics legislation approved by the Senate today would not target the actions of convicted felon and political insider Tony Rezko, found guilty of 16 counts of federal corruption. It also wouldn’t have stopped another political insider and hefty campaign contributor, Ali Ata, from testifying that he donated to the governor’s campaign in exchange for a high-powered state job.

Sen. James DeLeo, the Chicago Democrat sponsoring the governor's ethics bill, defended the measure and said it wouldn’t stop drug dealing or bank robbing, but it would improve the transparency of state government.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

What are the odds of any ethics reform legislation including something like this?

From the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

T I T L E 4

A M U S E M E N T S

P A R T I I

GAMING


§ 1513.
Political Influence.

(a) Contribution restriction.--The following persons shall be prohibited from contributing any money or in-kind contribution to a candidate for nomination or election to any public office in this Commonwealth, or to any
political party committee or other political committee in this Commonwealth or to any group, committee or association organized in support of a candidate, political party committee or other political committee in this
Commonwealth:

(1) An applicant for a slot machine license, manufacturer license, supplier license, principal license, key employee license or
horse or harness racing license.

(2) A slot machine licensee, licensed manufacturer, licensed
supplier or licensed racing entity.

(3) A licensed principal or licensed key employee of a slot machine licensee, licensed manufacturer, licensed supplier or licensed
racing entity.

(4) An affiliate, intermediary, subsidiary or holding company of a slot machine licensee, licensed manufacturer, licensed supplier or
licensed racing entity.

(5) A licensed principal or licensed key employee of an affiliate, intermediary, subsidiary or holding company of a slot machine licensee, licensed manufacturer, licensed supplier or licensed racing
entity.

(6) A person who holds a similar gaming license in another jurisdiction and the affiliates, intermediaries, subsidiaries, holding
companies, principals or key employees thereof.

(a.1) Contributions to certain associations and organizations barred.--

The individuals prohibited from making political contributions under
subsection (a) shall not make a political contribution of money or an in-kind contribution to any association or organization, including a nonprofit organization, that has been solicited by, or knowing that the contribution or a portion thereof will be contributed to, the elected official,
executive-level public employee or candidate for nomination or election to a
public office in this Commonwealth.

(a.2) Internet website.--

(1) The board shall establish an Internet website that includes a list of all applicants for and holders of a slot machine license, manufacturer license, supplier license or racing entity license, and the affiliates, intermediaries, subsidiaries, holding companies, principals and key employees thereof, all persons holding a similar
gaming license in another jurisdiction, and the affiliates,
intermediaries, subsidiaries, holding companies, principals and key employees thereof, and any other entity in which the applicant or licensee has any debt or equity security or other ownership or profits
interest.

An applicant or licensee shall notify the board within seven
days of the discovery of any change in or addition to the information.

The list shall be published semiannually in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

(2) An individual who acts in good faith and in reliance on the information on the Internet website shall not be subject to any penalties or liability imposed for a violation of this section.

(3) The board shall request the information required under paragraph (1) from persons licensed in another jurisdiction who do not hold a license in this Commonwealth and from regulatory agencies in the other jurisdiction.

If a licensee in another jurisdiction refuses to
provide the information required under paragraph (1), the person and its
officers, directors or persons with a controlling interest shall be
ineligible to receive any license under this part.

(b) Annual certification.--The chief executive officer, or other
appropriate individual, of each applicant for a slot machine license, manufacturer license or supplier license, licensed racing entity, licensed
supplier, licensed manufacturer or licensed gaming entity shall annually certify under oath to the board and the Department of State that such applicant or licensed racing entity, licensed supplier, licensed
manufacturer or licensed gaming entity has developed and implemented
internal safeguards and policies intended to prevent a violation of this
provision and that such applicant or licensed racing entity or licensed
gaming entity has conducted a good faith investigation that has not revealed any violation of this provision during the past year.

(c) Penalties.--The first violation of this section by a licensed gaming
entity or any person that holds a controlling interest in such gaming
entity, or a subsidiary company thereof, and any officer, director or
management-level employee of such licensee shall be punishable by a fine of
not less than an average single day's gross terminal revenue of the licensed gaming entity derived from the operation of slot machines in this
Commonwealth; a second violation of this section, within five years of the
first violation, shall be punishable by at least a one-day suspension of the
license held by the licensed gaming entity and a fine not less than an
average two days' gross revenue of the licensed gaming entity; a third
violation of this section within five years of the second violation shall be
punishable by the immediate revocation of the license held by the licensed gaming entity.

The first violation of this section by a manufacturer or
supplier licensed pursuant to this part or by any person that holds a
controlling interest in such manufacturer or supplier, or a subsidiary
company thereof, and any officer, director or management-level employee of such a licensee shall be punishable by a fine of not less than one day's
average of the gross profit from sales made by the manufacturer or supplier in Pennsylvania during the preceding 12-month period or portion thereof in the event the manufacturer or supplier has not operated in Pennsylvania for 12 months; a second violation of this section within five years of the first
violation shall be punishable by a one-month suspension of the license held by the manufacturer or supplier and a fine of not less than two times one
day's average of the gross profit from sales made by the manufacturer or
supplier in Pennsylvania during the preceding 12-month period or portion
thereof in the event the manufacturer or supplier has not operated in
Pennsylvania for 12 months.

In no event shall the fine imposed under this
section be in an amount less than $50,000 for each violation. In addition to
any fine or sanction that may be imposed by the board, any person who makes
a contribution in violation of this section commits a misdemeanor of the third degree.

(d) Definitions.

As used in this section, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Contribution." Any payment, gift, subscription, assessment, contract, payment for services, dues, loan, forbearance, advance or deposit of money or any valuable thing made to a candidate or political committee for the
purpose of influencing any election in this Commonwealth or for paying debts incurred by or for a candidate or committee before or after any election.

The term shall include the purchase of tickets for events including dinners,
luncheons, rallies and other fundraising events; the granting of discounts
or rebates not available to the general public; or the granting of discounts
or rebates by television and radio stations and newspapers not extended on
an equal basis to all candidates for the same office; and any payments
provided for the benefit of any candidate, including payments for the
services of a person serving as an agent of a candidate or committee by a
person other than the candidate or committee or person whose expenditures
the candidate or committee must report.

The term also includes any receipt or use of anything of value received by a political committee from another political committee and also includes any return on investments by a
political committee.

"Political committee."
Any committee, club, association or other group
of persons which receives contributions or makes expenditures.

(Nov. 1, 2006, P.L.1243, No.135, eff. imd.)
2006 Amendment. Act 135 amended subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (a.1),
(a.2) and (d).

Cross References. Section 1513 is referred to in section 1325 of this
title.

The pertinent aspects of Section 1325 (d) are as follows:

(d) Trusts and similar business entities.

The board shall determine the eligibility of a trust or similar business entity to be a licensed entity in
accordance with the following:

(1) No trust or similar business entity shall be eligible to hold any beneficial interest in a licensed entity under this part unless each trustee, grantor and beneficiary of the trust, including a minor child beneficiary, qualifies for and is granted a license as a principal.

The board may waive compliance with this paragraph if the trustee is a banking or lending institution and the board is satisfied that the
trustee is not significantly involved in the activities of the licensed entity.

In addition to other information required by the board, a banking
or lending institution acting as a trustee shall produce at the request
of the board any documentation or information relating to the trust.

(2) No beneficiary of a trust or similar business entity who is a minor child shall control or be significantly involved in the activities of a licensed entity or its holding company or intermediary.

No beneficiary of a trust or similar business entity who is a minor child
shall be permitted to vote to elect directors of a licensed entity or its
holding company or intermediary.

(3) No trust or similar business entity may hold any beneficial interest in a licensed entity unless the board determines that
the trust or similar business entity is not engaged in any activity or
otherwise being used to evade the public protections under this part, including sections 1512 (relating to financial and employment interests)and 1513 (relating to political influence).
(Nov. 1, 2006, P.L.1243, No.135, eff. imd.)

http://www.pgcb.state.pa.us/files/legislation/Current_Statute_Title_4.pdf

Anonymous said...

Is the governor going to sign the legislation to restore the funding? Those scheduled to be laid off really need to know so they can start making arrangements. Especially, those that are going to have to move, etc. I wish he would make a decision!