From the Bloomington Pantagraph:

Editorial

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

Gov should OK ethics bill despite its shortcomings

The political ethics reform bill approved by the Legislature brings to mind a movie title: "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." The best parts were left on the cutting room floor. It should be rated PG for "Political Grandstanding."

Among the "good" items in the bill are:

State-funded public service announcements that include the image or voice of an elected official can't be run after the official has filed petitions to be a candidate. "Prohibited political activity" is defined very specifically for those who seem incapable of understanding what's self-evident to everyone else. Appointments made by lame-duck governors 90 days or less before leaving office would expire 60 days into the term of the new governor.

What's "bad" is what's left out:

There still are no limits on the contributions to candidates. Time sheets must be kept of the number of hours state employees actually work for the state -- but they are not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Elected officials still may solicit contributions from their employees, although the law says raises and promotions are not supposed to be based on such contributions and the solicitation can't take place on the job.

The "ugly" part is the way the lawmakers gutted an important enforcement provision. Special ethics commissions with inspectors general having investigatory powers were eliminated in the final version approved in the waning hours of the session.

Lawmakers deserve no Oscars for their performance in passing this legislation.

But the legislation doesn't deserve a veto, either.

It may be a Grade B movie in the Ethics Reform Film Festival, but -- if you will pardon our cynicism -- it's probably the best Illinoisans are going to get for now.

Even Cindi Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, although disappointed by the last-minute changes, said, "I don't want to lose what we did accomplish."

Gov. Rod Blagojevich has said he would veto the bill if it lacked "real teeth." The bill still has "teeth" even without the ethics commissions and inspectors general -- it just doesn't have as many teeth. County prosecutors or the Illinois attorney general could use its provisions to prosecute ethics law violations. They also should be able to subpoena time-sheet records, even if the public can't obtain them through the Freedom of Information Act.

In addition, some of the provisions are so clear-cut that there is no way to finesse around them. No longer will taxpayers see -- and pay for -- ads touting organ donations or college scholarship savings plans close to elections that also feature office-holders who are candidates in that election.

Some of the provisions in the act will strike most people as such obvious ethical violations that one questions the need for them. For example, the law would prohibit registered lobbyists from being appointed to state policy-making boards. But, Illinois history shows that many politicians are oblivious to the obvious.

So the governor should sign the bill. But neither he nor anyone in the General Assembly should claim it brings sweeping reform to Illinois. That will require a sequel.