Elected leaders, voters must back serious reforms

By: Cynthia Canary September 21, 2009 With about 275,000 new book titles published annually in the United States, the odds were that, sooner or later, even Rod Blagojevich would find a publisher. "The Governor" tells his side of the story, and I'm not buying it — either the book or his fairy tale about the zealous prosecutor out to get him. Some might ask what Illinois has done to deserve the spectacle of Rod Blagojevich on the talk-show circuit and his wife on a jungle reality show. The answer is simple: Illinois voters keep electing people who talk about rooting out corruption but, once elected, don't deliver. And when they don't deliver, voters tend to turn a blind eye and re-elect them. The usual game in Springfield goes something like this: When significant reforms are proposed, legislative leaders in one chamber make a show of passing them, knowing those reforms won't be called for a vote in the other chamber. If the reform idea isn't completely killed, an emasculated version goes to the governor, who takes credit for signing "reform" legislation. Even with the Blagojevich scandal still in the headlines, the game started to play out per usual in Springfield. Legislators delivered a bill they said would put limits on campaign contributions. The governor called it historic, and most General Assembly members voted for the bill at the urging of leadership. It looked as if the game would end with another bill-signing ceremony and fist bumps all around. But then the people spoke. Reformers called the legislation flawed. Newspapers saw it as another scam. Voters called their elected leaders to complain. And no doubt, some legislators asked their leaders what they were going to do about the bad bill they voted for in May. Instead of a bill-signing ceremony, the replacement governor vetoed the bill last month and asked legislative leaders to craft a better bill that truly would limit contributions. That reversal is exactly how the system is supposed to work. If our elected leaders are serious about enacting meaningful reform, the limits on campaign contributions will be low enough that campaign funds will come from a broad range of people, not just big givers; leaders will set limits on their own ability to move money through the system; voters will be able to learn almost immediately who is making contributions, and state regulators will have new investigatory tools and tough fines to enforce the law. As we wait to see what the General Assembly will do with this second chance to pass real reform, the shameless Mr. Blagojevich is an ever-present reminder of why voters must demand changes, and the veto of the flawed limits bill is proof that those demands are sometimes answered.