By BILL MILLER
Associate professor and director of the Public Affairs Reporting Program at Sangamon State University, he was a reporter for 25 years and received over 20 Associated Press News Awards and the national Edward R. Murrow Award for investigative reporting.

Bill Scott

The attorney general sees his primary responsibility as fighting crime, enforcing antipollution policies, and carrying on consumer protection lights including antitrust cases. He believes serving as party leader is not compatible with this role in the justice system

ATTORNEY GENERAL William J. Scott admits he is thin-skinned, concedes he no longer is the "darling" of the Chicago Tribune, accuses Gov. Dan Walker of running the state by "confrontation and chaos," and laments that he would be a richer man today had he remained in the banking business and not gotten into politics.

In a wide-ranging interview, the state's top legal officer showed his utter contempt for Gov. Walker but credited him with an uncanny ability to command prime time on television. He also lambasted Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's machine for blocking legislation which, Scott said, would have permitted him to crackdown on "white collar" crime.

Talking politics, the attorney general said the Republican Party in Illinois is "more unified than ever" because it is "in a battle for survival." Scott brushed aside comments that he nettled many party faithful, including a number of county chairmen, in announcing that he would not run for governor next year but instead stand for reelection as attorney general. His comments bolstered speculation that a key reason he decided not to run is that whoever is elected governor next year, for a two-year term, will be forced to hike taxes. Scott, it appears, will be content to let someone else burn from the tax-hike heat and make his bid for the state's top office in 1978.

The 48-year-old Scott was elected state treasurer in 1962, attorney general in 1968, and reelected to that post in 1972. His vote-getting ability was shown in the election three years ago when he rolled up the highest vote total of any candidate in the state's history—2,898,198 votes. He also boasts that he has been the only Republican to carry Chicago (also in 1972) since Dwight Eisenhower's landslide victory in 1956.

This interview was conducted in Scott's Springfield office June 19:
Q: Was one of the key reasons behind your decision not to run for governor the likelihood that the next governor who will serve only a two-year term, will face the possibility of political suicide in being forced to impose higher taxes?
A: I think there is a real possibility that the massive spending on Gov. Walker's part is going to put the state into a serious fiscal situation that could lead to higher taxes. But, that isn't the reason I decided early to announce that I was going to seek reelection as attorney general. I'm involved in some very meaningful lawsuits which could bring about the changes that are needed to make our system of justice work. Whether or not we can save Lake Michigan, whether or not we can avoid a breakdown in our criminal justice system are more important than whether or not I'm going to be governor.

Q: Your announcement disappointed and irritated some county chairmen who had counted on you to run for governor. You don't feel your decision will foreclose any possibility of you running for that office in 1978?
A: Well, I've said I like being attorney general, but I'm not necessarily committed to being attorney general for the rest of my life. We're involved right now in some very significant legal battles and it would be the wrong thing for me to do to step out in the middle of those battles.

Q: Did you feel that you might have trouble raising sufficient campaign funds to run for governor?
A: No, I was pleased that it is possible for somebody who makes full disclosure as I've done, not only of the contributors, but also how the money is spent. I think it is very important that it is possible to get clean money which will come from people who have no interest other than trying to have a decent community

September 1975 / Illinois Issues / 263

Scott says Walker has been difficult to work with. Sometimes the attorney general has to tell the governor: 'What you are doing is illegal . . . Now this doesn't necessarily make you popular with the governor'

in which to work and raise their families.

Q: How much money do you feel it would take to run for governor?
A: Well, I hear the staggering sums that Walker spent in the last election run into the millions of dollars, and [former GOP Governor Richard] Ogilvie spent many millions of dollars. I think that these are just incredible sums. I think it is wrong to spend $4 or $5 million in a campaign. Hopefully, you could get the type of advertising exposure that you need to let the 11.2 million people of the state know who you are with an expenditure of around $1 million.

Q: Should there be a limit on campaign spending?
A: Absolutely yes. It is essential that there should not only be a limit on campaign spending but it should be required to say where that money is spent and how it is spent. I think there has been more abuse in campaign spending, actually, than in campaign contributors. I think a disclosure of not only where the money comes from but how it is spent is needed, and also a limitation on how much you would take from any one person and how much you should spend.

Q: How unified do you feel the Republican Party is now in Illinois?
A: I think we're probably more unified than ever before because we're in a battle for survival. Not only for survival as the Republican Party, but survival of the check and balance system in our government. This incredible situation where [Comptroller] George Lindberg and myself are now the only real watchdogs the taxpayer has on these big spending programs and the other manipulations of the opposition party which now controls the governor's office, the secretary of state, the two branches of the legislature, the Congressional delegation. City Hall in Chicago, the complete county machine in Cook County. Bernie Carey, the Republican state's attorney up there, is a lonely watchdog.

Q: Some Republicans in the state—county chairmen, for example—have criticized you for not assuming a greater leadership role in the state GOP Party in the post-Watergate period and the time after last fall's elections. Do you think there was a void which you should have stepped into in a leadership role?
A: Well, it would have been wrong for anybody who is in a law enforcement office, like attorney general, to take a position of political party boss. It's just impossible to have a person who is charged with administering a system of justice also fill the role as a political party boss.

[At this point, in response to a question, Scott declined to label himself, Sen. Charles H. Percy, or any other Republican as the "titular head" of the party in Illinois. He said it is a matter of "teamwork."]

Q: During the inauguration ceremony in January 1973 you shook Gov. Walker's hand and pledged to "work with him to make Illinois an even greater state." Now, with all the verbal sniping back and forth between you and the governor, do you feel that pledge has been fulfilled? Have you worked with Walker as well as you could have?
A: Well, he's been a very difficult person to work with. I do think, however, that in our official capacity as his lawyer we can point to the fact that we not only have represented the agencies well, but, most important, we've won almost every legal battle that we've been involved in and sometimes kept the governor from going to jail, for example, and have kept some of his department heads out of trouble.

That's the role of a lawyer, to tell your client what he can't do, to keep him out of trouble. If somebody came to a lawyer and said, "Hey, I'd like to rob a bank," that lawyer has an obligation to tell him, "You shouldn't do that, you're going to end up in jail and I'm not going to let you do that." That's really the role of the attorney general, as a watchdog for the taxpayers, to say to the governor, occasionally, as we have to: "What you are doing is wrong. What you are doing is illegal. What you are doing goes around the accepted procedure," such as the [absence of] bidding on State Fair contracts. Now this doesn't necessarily make you popular with the governor to have somebody looking over his shoulder and telling him when he's doing things wrong, but that is the constitutional role of the attorney general's office.

Q: How do you react to press criticism that you are thin-skinned?
A: Well, I think that those of us in public life that are trying to do a good job, and that are faced with this popular new game that the media has of being critical of everything that anybody in public office does probably are thin-skinned. It's kind of hard to spend long hours trying to help people and then find out that the favorite game of the columnist is to sit back and second guess you and try to find something that you did wrong.

Q: You were once considered the "darling" of the Chicago Tribune but lately you have been the target for some blistering attacks by the paper's editorial and political writers. What has happened?
A: Well, it's very simple. The Tribune likes me when I do the things that they feel agree with their editorial policy, and they dislike me when I don't agree with them. But, I've a responsibility of calling the shots in the attorney general's office based on what the law is and what the court decisions are, and making the governmental and political decisions based on how I think I can best do my job to protect the rights of the people of the state. We aren't going to agree on everything and there will be other areas where we will be working together.

Q: Some say you "play to the press" Do you?
A: No, I've just got to call the shots the way the law is written, not even the way I'd like the law to be written. My job is to interpret the law based on how the legislature and the court has done it and then, of course, to use our system of

264 / Illinois Issues / September 1975

justice to develop some new legal tools and new concepts. I go into the legislature and fight through new laws as we did in the antitrust, consumer and environmental fields, and we have to do the same thing in court. You can't do it based on what is the pet project of some editorial director.

Q: You appear to get along well with Secretary of State Michael J. Hewlett and it. Gov. Neil Hartigan. Both were, in fact, at the head table at your June fund-raising dinner. Why can you get along with those Democratic officeholders but not with Gov. Walker?
A: 1 think the secretary of state put it very well at my dinner when he said, "If you want to know something about somebody ask the people that he has to work very closely with." I worked very closely with Mike Hewlett when I was treasurer of the state and he was the auditor. We worked four years in a check and balance on each other and in those four years I found him to be one of the most honest, honorable public servants that 1 have ever seen". I think that all of us who have worked closely with Gov. Walker have some very serious misgivings about the conduct of the governor's office.

Q: How would you characterize the Walker administration so far?
A: I think that the only way to characterize it is that it is an administration of confrontation and chaos. Literally every department of state government has gone through, or is in a period of, chaos. Not just fiscal chaos, but certainly as we saw in the Department of Children and Family Services and State Fair Agency and many of Walker's departments, there is absolute chaos.

The other key word I mentioned is "confrontation." He seems to want confrontation not only with the legislature and with the other elected officials, but he wants constant confrontation in order to be center stage on the television screen. I think it is a deliberate, planned approach on his part to have continual confrontation and continual chaos.

Q: In your opinion is Walker trying to head for the White House?
A: Well, he's certainly heading for that prime time on television when he can drop into the homes of 11.2 million people of our state. He has a very extensive public relations apparatus that is paid for by the taxpayers of this state. They are some of the best in the business. and he is a master at getting not only television but other media exposure on the basis of confrontation and chaos.

Q: Back to yourself—when did the political bug bite you and what were the circumstances?
A: Well, I first got really involved in politics when I was elected president of the student council in my high school and state president of the Illinois Association of Student Councils. I met a fellow by the name of Richard Welling who had been the district attorney who broke up Tammany Hall in New York. He convinced me that if we're going to have honest government that you can't leave it up to the crooks and that honest people have to get involved in government. So I did. I got involved as a criminal prosecutor with the U. S. Justice Department.

I was concerned about the link between crime and politics, and I figured out the only way I could do something about it was to get into politics. So, I ran for office in 1962 with Dick Ogilvie, who was then a U. S. attorney [and candidate for Cook County sheriff]. I ran for the office that I felt I could best do a job in and that was for state treasurer, based on my qualification of having been a lawyer in the banking business and understanding finances as well as the legal work.

Q: You were vice president of a bank in Chicago for several years before you decided to run for state treasurer. Have you ever had any second thoughts about your decision to quit the banking business and get into politics? Would you not have been better of f financially?
A: There's no question that any of us who are doing an honest job in government could do a lot better in private industry. During the years I was practicing law as an individual, my salary was a great deal more than it is now. Certainly as vice president in charge of the commercial division of one of the major banks in the state, my salary was better. I think that when I revealed all my net worth and income it was significant that for a person my age it isn't very great. Most of my net worth is in my personal belongings—my clothes and furniture and things like that—and quite frankly, if I ever tried to sell them I probably couldn't even get $100,000 as a total for my net worth. Considering I made at one time $65,000 to $70,000 a year practicing law, it's a tough business to be in financially,

Q: Looking back on your years as attorney general, what have been some of your major frustrations?
A: Well, the only place that we've been blocked so far is in trying to do something in the field of criminal justice. I was successful in fighting through the legislature the toughest environmental, the toughest antitrust, the toughest consumer fraud laws in the nation, but each time we've asked the legislature to give us the tools to deal with these incredible financial crimes and other areas of crime and violence that are racking the state, they've refused to give us, in the attorney general's office, any jurisdiction. However, we're still fighting for it, and we've again developed some new approaches to enable us to solve some of these serious problems. For example, we have gone to the courts and developed some common law, and we've also worked out a system to help the county prosecutors in their really tough cases.

Q: Just how serious is "white-collar crime" in Illinois?
A: I think financial or "white-collar crimes" are reaching the point that they could literally break our economic base in this state and nation. The magnitude of it is becoming staggering. When you think of the losses into the millions and millions of dollars of people's life savings and when you relate it to individual cases of families who have seen their savings wiped out by these frauds there is an incredible amount of hardship. The other reason that it is so essential to get a handle on these big multimillion dollar crooks is to prove that our system of justice can work.

Q: What additional tools do you want the legislature to provide your office to further the battle against "while-collar crimes"?
A: In order to really do an effective job, we need to have direct legislative authority to file criminal charges and investigate crime in the insurance, securities, banking and finance fields, and in the field of government spending—the spending of the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars.

The legislature, by a very narrow margin—a tie vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee—refused to give us that tool. We're going to continue to try to protect the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars and do it in cooperation with the county state's attorneys by borrowing their grand juries. But, it would be much more efficient if we

September 1975 / Illinois Issues / 265

It is a question of establishing certain laws and concepts that would give us the right to protect people against price-fixing,' says Scott

could just move in and conduct an investigation and have the power to indict and convict in the attorney general's office.

Q: Who in the legislature is thwarting your efforts? Can you identify them and tell why you think they are doing it?
A: I think the answer as to why they are doing it is that many of them just don't like the idea of having somebody looking over their shoulders, and I think that there is a misconception that the attorney general's office should be only a civil office.

Q: Who are you talking about?
A: Of course, the main opposition has come from the Democratic machine. However, we found [Victor] De Grazia, the deputy governor under Walker, working hand in hand with Daley's legislative aides to block the right of the attorney general to be able to investigate and prosecute for any of these things.

Q: You have been divorced. You are now remarried. Do you think that divorce and say, religion, are issues anymore in politics?
A: I think that people nowadays are electing officials based on what type of job they are going to do in office. I think that probably the best example of that is that I was elected attorney general the first time by 350,000 votes, and I was single when I ran for attorney general the second time and got elected by 1,283,000 votes. So, I think that's the answer. I don't even know if that was a good question—it's really like a gossip column thing.

Q: In conclusion, what is left to be done in the attorney general's office that you want to accomplish in the remaining portion of your current term?
A: There is a great deal left to be done even though we have accomplished probably more than anybody in the history of any attorney general's office in the country. Our constant goal has been and is the fight for equal justice. But, our whole system of justice now is literally faced with the danger of collapse.

We're going to see an explosion of crime and violence this year because of the economic program and the influx of heroin from Turkey that is going to be staggering. We have a real urgent job to try to get a handle on some preventative medicine in the field of drug abuse, and that's taking top priority in our office.

We have some of the most meaningful and crucial antipollution cases in process right now. The case against Inland Steel is not just one against the largest steel plant in the nation. The question is whether or not we can get a handle on that gigantic industrial complex in Indiana that has been destroying Lake Michigan and, of course, where most of the air pollution in Northern Illinois comes from. The Inland case, which will probably go up to the Supreme Court, will decide whether we can save this lake for future generations.

The same is true in the antitrust field. We're involved now in some massive price-fixing cases with General Motors, Chrysler and Ford, and giant drug companies, the big sugar companies, that are more than just a battle for dollars. It is a question of establishing certain laws and concepts that would give us the right to protect people against price-fixing.

So, in those fields of the environment, consumer protection, and criminal justice, we have not only some vital goals to reach but we are on a crash program. We cannot afford to spend the next 17 months politicking; we have to spend it winning those law cases and hopefully trying to head off what could be a major breakdown in our criminal justice system. �

266 / Illinois Issues / September 1975