From the THE NEWS-GAZETTE

Legislator sends state-funded mailers she once decried

By KATE CLEMENTS

November 2, 2003
SPRINGFIELD – State Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana, recently sent out a six-page mailer to more than 34,000 residents in her district, touting her actions in the General Assembly this spring and talking about new legislation.
It was paid for by the state, with tax dollars appropriated to each legislator through a district office allowance.
Yet a similar "legislative update" issued by former state Rep. Tom Berns, R-Urbana, was the subject of criticism from Jakobsson back in August 2002 when the two were engaged in a campaign for the 103rd District House seat.
"It is unacceptable to use state funds for a mailer like this when people are losing their jobs and services are being cut," Jakobsson said at that time. "I believe this shows that Tom does not understand the needs and concerns of the citizens in this district."
On one page of Jakobsson's brochure, the text notes that she co-sponsored Senate Bill 3, which when it takes effect in January will create a bulk prescription program for senior citizens and the disabled. But the legislation originated in the Senate, where state Sen. Rick Winkel, R-Champaign, was one of 39 sponsors; in the House, the bill had 18 other sponsors.
On another page, Jakobsson says: "I even introduced legislation to reduce your tax burden."
But none of the bills Jakobsson introduced that relate to tax relief have become law. The only bill she introduced that became law was a ban on mercury fever thermometers.
Both Berns' and Jakobsson's mailers contained similar layouts and language, but Jakobsson said her situation is different.
"He was campaigning," she said. "I think this is constituent information. This is to let the residents and citizens of this district know about new laws and how they can participate in new or expanded initiatives put forward by the state. This is not two months before the election, and this is clearly information that people in this area need to know about."
As it turned out, Jakobsson was misinformed about Berns, who had used state funds to pay for similar mailers in the past, but paid for the August 2002 newspaper insert with his own campaign funds.
The cost of Jakobsson's mailer was not available, but Berns said at the time that his cost $2,600 to print and distribute in newspapers – a less expensive way to distribute the brochures.
However, it would not have been illegal for him to have printed and distributed the "legislative update" on the taxpayers' dime.
Proposed ethics legislation slated for debate in the November veto session would change that, barring such state-paid mailers between Feb. 1 and primary election day or between Sept. 1 and the general election.
House Bill 3412 was approved by the House and Senate last spring, but the governor issued an amendatory veto on other parts of the bill this summer, sending the whole thing back to the House for further debate.
Jakobsson, who is a co-sponsor of the bill, said she is already imposing even stricter regulations on herself.
"We're over a year away from the next election, and I'm not campaigning, and in fact, I'm committing right now not to send any tax-funded mailer out after August first of next year," she said. "If I have a primary opponent, I won't send one out after December."
Winkel has taken it a step further, banning all state-paid mailings to constituents on a year-round basis.
He said he made that pledge when he ran for the House for the first time in 1994, and other than a simple survey he sent out shortly after that election, he has always done all his printing and mailings with campaign funds.
"I think it should be a rule, and it should be applicable to everyone," Winkel said. "I mean you see some of these mailers that you know come very close, if not actually crossing over the line and becoming more like a campaign brochure."
Winkel said he would support very tight restrictions on the ability of legislators to send out mailers paid for by taxpayers, if not an outright ban.
But State Rep. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, defended the mailings as an important means of communication with constituents, particularly in larger rural districts like his, where it is not feasible to knock on every door personally every time he wants to let them know something.
"Certainly I guess from my perspective, it's really hard to reach all of my constituents without mailing them," Rose said. "I think that's got legitimate benefit."
While admitting that the mailings tend to show the sender in a positive light, Rose said the Legislative Printing Unit monitors the content to make sure it is doesn't go too far.
"If LPU prints it, that's a bipartisan group, and it's a group that's going to make sure that things that are political aren't getting printed," he said.
The current rules were adopted in 1992, said John Rodems, executive director of the Legislative Printing Unit.
The guidelines require that all photographs must relate to a member's governmental activities; prohibit any appeals, direct or indirect, for campaign contributions or other funds; and ban any announcements about campaign activities. References to past or future campaigns and autobiographical or family news items not related to the member's role as a lawmaker are also not supposed to be included.
Newsletters, under the Legislative Printing Unit guidelines, may deal with "such matters as reports on public and official actions taken by the General Assembly and the legislators requesting the newsletters; discussions of proposed or pending legislation or governmental actions; and the position of the members of the General Assembly on, and the arguments for or against, such matters."
The guidelines also permit newsletters to contain "fair comment on the positions take by the constitutional officer, legislative leader or legislative caucus," but no personal criticisms are permitted.
In addition to newsletters, "other types of printed materials may be ordered if they relate specifically to legislation or topics related to the official role of a member of the state Senate or House of Representatives and neither are, nor resemble campaign literature," the rules state.
The rules allow the Legislative Printing Unit director to notify the lawmaker if any specific items or words on the items to be printed are inappropriate and provides a process through which suggested changes may be negotiated.
As enforced, those guidelines allow quite a bit of latitude, however.
"It is a gray area," said Kent Redfield, professor of political studies at University of Illinois Springfield. "(The newsletters) vary widely in terms of their value."
"Certainly some of them are very self-serving; some of them are pretty straightforward," he said.
The problems are that there is no clear line of definition between what is informational and what is promotional; and the Legislative Printing Unit is run by a board consisting of sitting lawmakers and the director they appoint, Redfield said.
A director who repeatedly rejected mailers sent in by either or both parties could soon find himself without a job, he noted.
"It's not something where there area lot of incentives to take a tough attitude in enforcing the guidelines," Redfield said.
Since the value of these "informational" mailings is often in the eye of the beholder, many other states have chosen to do what Illinois is considering, which is simply to set clear limits as to when they may be sent.
"When it's a year out or more than that, I don't think it's necessarily practical to make a judgment on sort of the editorial content of every legislator's piece," said Cindi Canary, director of Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. "Our concern is when it is close to an election, because then you cross a very subtle line from an information piece to an information piece that uses state resources to reinforce incumbency."
The Illinois Campaign For Political Reform supports a moratorium on such mailings for at least 60 days or so before an election, but is not seeking to eliminate the practice, Canary said.
"I think what we are really trying to balance are the rights and the need for legislators to communicate with constituents against the need to ensure that we are not using taxpayer revenues for individual elections," she said.