STATE OF THE STATE

Lawmakers go on the record for those campaign brochures

by Jennifer Halperin

The state's policy agenda is driven by politics. And every other year is an election year in Illinois.

Good-government proposals. Pension sweeteners for state employees. School funding reforms.

This spring's legislative session looked like a busy, effective one for Republicans in the Illinois House of Representatives. Indeed, they'll be able to fill their campaign brochures with descriptions of feel-good bills they sent out of their chamber.

What will be missing from their pamphlets, of course, is the rest of the story: Many of the measures they introduced were written, debated and supported by House members who knew full well those bills stood little chance of success across the Capitol rotunda in the state Senate — or downstairs in the governor's office.

But what do House members care? They've covered their own behinds on some sensitive issues; in an election year, that can be more than enough.

"This year the election-driven motivations are more blatant than ever," says John Jackson, dean of the College of Liberal Arts at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

"Certainly the public policy agendas in Illinois are driven by elections and politics, so they are short-term agendas. By almost common consent from both sides of the aisle, there's an agreement you can't tackle important, serious issues in Illinois during an election year.

"The problem is that every other year is an election year in Illinois."

The most obvious example of voting for perception instead of real policy could be House Republicans' support for Speaker Lee Daniels' education reform plan, which seemed designed to do little more than mollify voters who want to see the state put additional money into Illinois schools. The plan was a response to Gov. Jim Edgar's support for a constitutional amendment that would boost the state's share of school funding while reducing reliance on local property taxes.

Political scientist Jack Van Der Slik, who heads the Legislative Studies Center at the University of Illinois at Springfield, says Edgar's support for education reform wasn't timed well for lawmakers. "Daniels or [Senate President James] 'Pate' [Philip] had to do something" to shield their members from being tied to a state tax increase supported by their GOP governor.

Jackson agrees Edgar's support for education funding reform probably made the maneuvering by Republican lawmakers seem even more political. "The governor, who's not up for re-election until 1998, had some amount of political courage and recommended we address a major structural long-term problem in Illinois," he says. "That's just not something that's done in Illinois during an election year."

As proposed, Daniels' plan would have shifted money to schools from other areas in Edgar's budget. Some dollars would have come from cuts in the State Board of Education's budget, some from eliminating new or vacant government positions, some from savings derived from delayed bill-paying.

The plan met ambivalence from Philip and contempt from Edgar. Not the kind of reception that spells success in the long run. Indeed, GOP leaders ultimately agreed to split the difference by boosting school funding some $68 million above Edgar's original request and requiring some additional accountability from schools.

Nonetheless, House members' approval of Daniels' original plan (they must have reasoned) would put GOP representatives on the record as would-be reformers of schools in Illinois. (Ironically, the move could backfire against downstate Republican supporters because the final plan will benefit rich suburban school districts. Some dollars were earmarked for block grants to all districts regardless of financial need.) Never mind that the proposal does nothing to address funding disparities among rich and poor schools.

Then there was the much-heralded House ethics package. It called for a ban on political contributions from riverboat casino and race-track owners to candidates for state office, and the elimination of legislative scholarships. It also would have required that campaign contributors disclose their occupations and employers, and called for disclosure for those who donate $150 or more per year to a candidate.

Daniels supported the package, which generated considerable media play and lots of fodder for campaign fliers. But by the time the package went out of the chamber in late April, it contained only the provision elimi-

6 ¦ June 1996 Illinois Issues

nating the legislative scholarships. Even that action, though, was orchestrated against a backdrop of opposition from Philip.

The scholarships had generated controversy earlier in the session when it was disclosed they often were given to students with political connections. Indeed, Philip was apparently so riled by a journalist's questions about the scholarships that he issued a memo to his members advising them they shouldn't talk to the reporter. Yet Philip declined to call the matter for a vote, saying his members do not abuse the privilege. (The Senate did indeed kill the measure. Ultimately, though, both chambers agreed to require the release of recipients' names.)

Once again, Daniels' members gained political cover at little cost. After all, if they are called on the ineffective votes they can argue it was the Senate that played spoiler.

"It's interesting that the Senate has taken on that role," Jackson says. Technically, it's a role that follows the intentions of our nation's founders.

"Our system of government traditionally holds that the House reflects the passions of the moment and the Senate is supposed to cool those passions," he says.

He's more skeptical of current state senators' intentions, though. "I think their role is more attributable to the fact that only [a portion] of the Senate is up for election each time, whereas the House is tied to the vagaries of the moment. The basic theme here is election-year politics."

All 118 House seats will be filled this fall, while only 40 of the Senate seats are up. Still, this session saw some interesting intra-chamber campaign-related rivalry among Republicans.

A case in point is the measure pushed by Springfield Reps. Raymond Poe and Gwenn Klingler and approved by their GOP House colleagues in mid-April. Originally, it called for a nearly 33 percent increase in pensions for the average state employee. Sounds great for thousands of Poe and Klingler constituents who work for the state. After all, who wouldn't want to see their retirement benefits shoot up by one-third? Conceivably, grateful state workers will read campaign mailings outlining this effort and show their appreciation by re-electing the pair in November.

In fact, there was every expectation the Senate would block the expensive pension boost. Ultimately, that chamber did. But first — not to be outdone — Springfield's third Republican lawmaker, Sen. Larry Bomke, added school teachers to the mix when the measure reached his chamber, boosting the pension debt to $2.6 billion — and finally booting the measure off the table. Yet, even if one of the two chambers had failed to blink on the budget-busting package, Gov. Edgar was expressing concern. What sparked this political game of chicken among fiscally conservative Republicans? Bomke, who was appointed to the Senate, is facing his first legislative election this fall.

Other senators vulnerable to defeat this fall aren't above advocating their own high-profile, go-nowhere bills.

Republican Sen. Dave Syverson of Rockford pushed an "anti-crime" measure passed by the Senate that would allow the state's Department of Corrections to set up chain gangs for Illinois prisoners.

Sounds tough — until you consider a few political realities.

First, the governor has strong reservations about chain gangs. Second, corrections officials have made it clear they dislike the idea. Third, the measure had little chance over in the House.

In fact, Republican Rep. Ron Wait of Belvidere pulled his tougher chain gang bill from the floor, sensing impending defeat.

Still, Syverson will be able to tell voters he pushed his proposal through the state Senate.

There's a practical political reason lawmakers' efforts to achieve personal political advantage instead of productive policies seem more blatant than ever. Daniels will have to work hard to retain the GOP advantage in the House this year, says Van Der Slik.

"The Republicans have to defend the majority, and that's different," he says. "On balance, the Democrats in urban Chicago and even downstate urban areas have a secure hold on their seats.

"There are more targets this year that the Republicans have to defend against."

Illinois Issues June 1996 ¦ 7