5 bills to push back against Illinois’ culture of political corruption

Legislation in the Illinois House would empower inspectors general, restrict lobbying by elected leaders, add protections against conflicts of interest and end last-minute amendments to legislation.

The recent conviction of former Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan was a win against corruption in the state, but there is much more the state must do if it wants to shake off its dubious distinction as one of the most corrupt states in the country.

Five bills in the Illinois General Assembly work to address the structural issues that have enabled corruption in the state. These bills address the weakness of the legislative inspector general and lack of transparency in the Legislative Ethics Commission, the loopholes that allow lawmakers to lobby local governments and represent clients against taxpayers’ interests, and the dubious practice of passing hundreds of pages of legislation at the last minute before the public or even lawmakers themselves have the opportunity to see it.

Independence and transparency in ethics investigations

The legislative inspector general is tasked with investigating ethics violations by lawmakers and employees of the legislative branch. But multiple former legislative inspectors general have criticized the position’s lack of authority to issue subpoenas or to publish summary reports showing the findings of their investigations without approval of the lawmakers on the Legislative Ethics Commission. One former legislative inspector general labeled the office a “paper tiger.”

House Bill 1382 would require the Executive and Legislative Ethics Commissions to publish any summary reports within 60 days after they receive the report and the response from the state attorney general, agency head or related final jurisdictional authority. It would also enable the legislative inspector general to issue subpoenas without advance approval from the ethics commission. The executive branch’s inspector general already enjoys that authority. This bill would give the paper tiger some teeth.

Lobbying restrictions

Two bills would restrict lobbying by state leaders. Most states require a minimum 1-2 year cooling off period before a former lawmaker can become a lobbyist, but Illinois currently allows lawmakers to go from legislator one day to lobbyist the next, as long as the legislator finished out his or her term. House Bill 1385 would end the revolving door from public official to lobbyist by requiring a 3-year cooling off period before certain state leaders of the executive branch and members of the General Assembly could engage in lobbying at the state level.

House Bill 2413 would close the loophole that currently allows sitting state lawmakers to be employed lobbying local Illinois governments so long as it was not on behalf of a lobbyist or entity registered to lobby the General Assembly or the state executive branch. A lawmaker lobbying a unit of local government is a clear conflict of interest considering the power the General Assembly has over the operations of local government. The practice should be ended in all its forms.

Conflict of interest

Clients of Madigan’s law firm received over $1 billion in reduced property value assessments in property tax appeals while he was still acting as the House speaker and had immense influence over legislation having a great impact on those taxes. Most states require lawmakers to disclose any conflicts before voting on legislation or to recuse themselves entirely, or both. But Illinois lawmakers are currently on the honor system when it comes to conflicts of interest.

House Bill 3121 would prohibit sitting lawmakers from being paid to testify or represent clients against the state or local governments. Violating this provision would be a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 364 days in jail and up to $2,500 in fines. The bill would also require lawmakers to publicly disclose a conflict of interest for any legislative matter in which they or an immediate family member had a financial interest, and to recuse themselves from voting on the matter.

Reading requirement

Gutting a piece of legislation and inserting an amendment of hundreds of pages is a common practice in Springfield. It’s how the Illinois General Assembly passes many controversial bills, such as the SAFE-T Act, the omnibus ethics bill passed in 2021, and its budget bills. This gives lawmakers no chance for debate or for the public to even see the legislation beforehand.

This “gut-and-replace” practice is specifically done to get around the state constitution’s requirement that each bill be read on three separate days in each chamber before it can be passed.  State courts have repeatedly recognized the practice as a violation of the constitution and the Illinois Supreme Court at one point threatened to abandon their deference to the legislature in determining whether a bill has met all the procedural requirements before it was passed.

House Bill 1748 would require lawmakers to follow the constitution. It requires any bill introduced remain in the Illinois House of Representatives or Senate for at least five calendar days before it can be passed out of the chamber, and it would require an additional five calendar days after the bill is amended.

Conclusion

Mike Madigan’s conviction shows Illinois has made some progress dismantling the culture of corruption in Springfield, but that culture did not leave with the former speaker. If Illinois wants to rehabilitate its reputation for political corruption, it must strengthen both the ethics rules and its watchdogs. By empowering inspectors general, ending lawmaker lobbying and the revolving door, establishing enforceable rules against conflicts of interest and requiring lawmakers to actually read the legislation they pass, these bills would go a long way toward attacking corruption in the state.