Digging Deeper on Ethics Reform
Sen. Ann Gillespie (D-Arlington Heights) sponsored a new ethics bill passed Monday.
NOTE: This story was originally posted for subscribers only. To receive subscriber-only newsletters and content, click here.
Following passage of an ethics reform package that seemingly made nobody happy, the Senate sponsor says it’s a step in the right direction. Sen. Ann Gillespie (D-Arlington Heights) spoke with The Illinoize Tuesday. These questions and some responses have been edited for brevity and clarity:
The Illinoize: What was the sticking point for a one year cooling off period? That seemed to be the base number for a lot of folks.
Gillespie: Not every state is the same. The state to our southern border, Missouri, has a six month cooling off. So, I think a lot of people just thought that was a sufficient cooling off time. People think legislators who become lobbyists have more influence than they actually do. If you ask people around, they will say that a former legislator lobbyist is usually one of the least effective lobbyists. So, I think there was some real sincere belief that we really don’t need more than six months because they don’t have power anymore and they’re not going to be that influential anyway. So, I don’t think that it was anything mercurial, it was just people sincerely believe that.
Q: Are you concerned about the potential loophole that someone can resign a day before the end of a General Assembly and immediately become a registered lobbyist?
A: Well, Senator [John] Curran (the Republican lead) and I both would have preferred something that was a very simple time period. That’s always easier to explain, that’s always easier for everyone to understand, but this is where we landed.
Q: How do you think the new “consultant” registration changes things?
A: I truly believe that’s a big one. Because, a lot of the players you’ve seen in the ComEd and red light cameras and other kinds of scandals we’ve seen in the last few years have been folks that were in that consultant role. I really think that this is a big one because it provides sunshine on those behind the scenes relationships that, otherwise, weren’t very visible.
Q: There’s no doubt the perception of state government is not good, I don’t have to tell you that. Will this bill bring some trust back into government?
A: I think one of the first things it does is it shows our voters that we are seriously trying to correct some of the issues we’ve seen in the last few years. There’s a lot in this bill that does that. [We’re] closing the consultant loophole, it’s the beginnings of a revolving door. There is a tightening of the Statement of Economic Interest filings that requires more disclosure. There is power for the Inspector General to initiate an investigation without approval. There is standardization in the lobbying requirements at local levels of government. And, with red light cameras, that was all local governments. I think that there’s a lot that it does to begin to lay the framework for the General Assembly policing itself.
Q: Republicans have said this bill doesn’t ban a sitting legislator from lobbying the city of Chicago, like indicted former member Luis Arroyo. Why exempt Chicago? That doesn’t fix the problem, does it?
A: No, actually, it does. If you look at the language carefully, members of the General Assembly still are prohibited from lobbying any local governments, which is what Arroyo was doing. And the city of Chicago, when we added the exemption, we added language saying that because they are not part of the state lobbying requirements, that they cannot lobby anybody outside of the city of Chicago. They believe their language is stronger. I don’t personally believe it was. I don’t know if they were fully reading the language in the bill or hadn’t fully analyzed it.
Q: But a sitting member of the General Assembly would still be allowed to lobby the city of Chicago…
A: No. No. No. Remember, a lot of lawyers who are doing legal work, because of the way the city defines lobbying, were required to register even though they weren’t doing anything that was considered lobbying outside of the city of Chicago.
Meanwhile, good government group CHANGE Illinois called the package “weak” and claimed it “fell short on delivering meaningful reforms.”
