An attack on 'pay to play'

Unfortunately, the number one issue in the recent campaign season were the allegations of pay to play that were being constantly made, rejected, and debated. Likely the number one political issue covered by the media was the same subject.

So I think it fitting that addressing this, and related, issues should be a number one priority of the 95th General Assembly.

To that end, I am the chief sponsor of House Bill 1, legislation that was an initiative of Comptroller Dan Hynes, which would curtail the underlying actions which give rise to pay to play allegations.

In sum, the bill prohibits those holding contracts over $25,000 from making a political contribution to the officeholder who awarded the contract. The bill further requires, as part of hte procurement process, bidders on state contracts worth more than $10,000 to disclose all campaign contributions for the prior two years to the officeholder awarding the contract. The contribution ban would be in effect for the length of the officeholder's term or for two years past the completion of hte contract, whichever is greater.

We had introduced this bill last session as HB4073 with bipartisan support in both chambers. Myself and Rep. Bill Black were the lead House sponsors. Sens. del Valle and Dillard were the main Senate sponsors. The bill was never released from the Rules Committee.

Our efforts picked up a significant boost today via an editorial from the Chicago Tribune titled 'An attack on 'pay to play'. The Trib support is notable not only for its substance but also in light of the fact that the paper has historically opposed any attempts to limit campaign contributions. But despite this, they rightfully recognize that something needs to be done.

This page dislikes limits on free speech. But enough corruption is enough. Private-sector workers often accept as a condition of employment limits on what they may say. The limits in House Bill 1 would fall on firms as a condition of doing business with the state. Fair enough.

One of my biggest concerns about the charges, and findings, of corruption around Springfield over the last so many years is that they divert so much time and attention away from the issues that we should be focused upon. The Tribune editorial board nicely crystallized the problem like this:

Last fall, thousands of column inches, hours of airtime and miles of campaign trail were consumed by talk of Illinois' corrupt government. That meant those thousands of column inches, hours of airtime and miles of campaign trail were not spent discussing critical state issues: Our public school system produces students unable to compete in a global economy. We've heaped so much long-term debt on taxpayers to pay for lofty programs and public employee benefits, the state risks insolvency. The list goes on.

As I write this post, I have no firm idea of what the future holds for HB1. I do know that it enjoys the support of a broad-based coalition of good government groups, a number of constitutional officers, many legislators, and I would presume the vast majority of Illinoisans. I am hopeful that the words from campaign trails around the state will be translated into results.

In the closing words of the Tribune.

If they're asked to say yea or nay on this bill, legislators who talked the talk about ethics reform in the fall campaign will have to perform a mighty clever tap dance to explain a "no" vote.

The question is, Will House Bill 1 ever be called for a vote? Millions of us will be watching.

To read or post comments, visit Open House