Tying Up Loose Ends

Working close to 90 hours last week covering the budget, ethics reforms and other last-minute legislative issues at the capitol, I haven't had the energy to update the blog as thoroughly as I'd like. I've already mentioned that lawmakers left town after passing a budget that has enough money for about half the fiscal year. They also arguably fell short on campaign finance reform and left a recall measure in the hopper until they come back later this year.

The first-ever limits on campaign contributions in Illinois are headed to the governor's desk. I've already gone into a lot of the details on the limits, so I won't rehash them in this post. However, one effect I think hasn't been covered enough is that the way the limits are set up could potentially make it harder to track who is giving money to the candidates. Say what you will about having no limits on contributions, to date, Illinois has had a pretty thorough disclosure system for donations. Granted, some candidates might have failed to disclose who was giving them money, but for the most part it was easy to see where the money was flowing. But with all the different committees politicians can set up -- campaign committees, constituent services committees and multi-candidate committees -- I can easily see them hiding donations by funneling a questionable donation through one committee and then transfering it to another.

Meantime, one of Gov. Pat Quinn's top priorities for reform, a proposal to allow voters to recall a sitting governor, will have to wait. The proposal would allow Illinois voters to decide at the 2010 election whether the state constitution should be amended to allow a sitting governor to be recalled. The House overwhelmingly approved the measure on Saturday and, at first, it seemed like the Senate was going to speed it through the process so the bill could get the required three readings on three separate days -- Saturday, Sunday and shortly after midnight on Monday -- and pass it before leaving town. It got the first reading it needed in the Senate on Saturday, but the second reading didn't happen until early Monday morning.

Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) said he told Quinn that it will get the required third reading on the first day the Senate returns to session, whenever that is. He explained that since the proposal requires voter approval to become law and the next general election is November 2010, there's no need for lawmakers to give their approval right away. That's a good point, though it didn't stop Republicans from making a bit of noise criticizing Democrats for not pushing the recall effort through before they left town.

I think the bigger problem here, though, is how hard it would be for the recall measure to actually be used. One hurdle would be requiring supporters of recall to gather voter signatures equal to 15 percent of the voters who cast ballots in the previous election for governor. They'd have 150 days to get what would amount to hundreds of thousands of signatures. Yes, that's a pretty high hurdle, but it seems an appropriate one to make sure there's widespread support for recall. But before that could happen, 30 lawmakers would have to initiate the process by signing an affidavit supporting recall. At least 20 House members and 10 senators -- evenly divided between the two parties -- would have to sign the affidavit. That essentially means if one of the four caucuses didn't support recall, they could block it before voters got a say. Let's put it like this, if this recall measure had been in place a few years ago and voters wanted to recall Gov. Rod Blagojevich before he was impeached, does anyone think former Senate President Emil Jones would have let Senate Democrats sign off? Me neither. If recall is supposed to be a tool for the people to decide if the governor should be removed, lawmakers shouldn't have a say at all, I think.

Some might argue this move was largely symbolic since lamakers already earn a minimum salary of about $70,000, but the House and Senate approved a bill this past weekend that prevents them from getting a 3 percent pay raise next fiscal year. It would also require them to take four furlough days. I shouldn't be surprised, but there were a few legislators who voted against the bill. Considering the state's budget mess and that the Senate approved a major tax hike (even if it ultimately died in the House), it takes some major ego to vote for raising your already significant salary.

The bill would also eliminate the independent Compensation Review Board which recommends raises for lawmakers, constitutional officers and judges. The board's recommendations are automatically approved unless both the House and Senate vote down the raises. It's a process that has often been criticized as convoluted. If the governor signs the bill (I can't see him not signing) lawmakers would have to introduce and vote on their own proposal to raise pay for the state's top officials.

Civil unions will have to wait

Gay and Lesbian advocates pushing for civil unions in Illinois will have to keep waiting. Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), an openly gay member of the House, decided not to call a civil union bill before the legislature went home. He didn't want the debate over civil unions bogged down with all the other politically sensitive issues lawmakers were deciding at the end of session. He wants lawmakers to focus their full attention on the issue when it comes up for a vote and he accurately observed that the atmosphere just wasn't right to accomplish that this past week. Whether or not things will be any calmer when lawmakers come back is yet to be seen.