Politics
By ROBERT KIECKHEFER

WHEN former Gov. Daniel Walker finally obeyed court orders recently and turned over to the State Board of Elections a list of the people and groups that gave him campaign contributions while he was in office, he raised some questions that are of major importance to the people of Illinois.

The list was an interesting one, indeed. But it wasn't particularly surprising. It showed the contributors to the governor's "Mid-Term Dinner" which was held to wipe out Walker's lingering 1972 campaign debt. The list included:

Some of Walker's own department heads, all of whom held office at Walker's pleasure and not all of whom could easily afford the tab; a whole host of labor unions, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which at the time was dealing with Walker appointees in contract negotiations; a raft of lobbying groups and professional associations, including medical groups interested in licensing, malpractice and other issues; and a range of contractors and businessmen who depended for part of their livelihood on doing business with the state.

There was nothing on the list, of course, to indicate any violation of the law. Each of the organizations and individuals had a perfect right to contribute to Walker, under terms of the state statutes.

But saying it's legal doesn't also say it's right. And those who watch state government operate have to entertain some questions.

The first question is: Did any of the contributors feel pressured to contribute? Did someone lean on the road-builders, the architects and the consultants — telling them or implying to them that they would find it hard to do state business if they didn't kick in? That they would find it easier if they did give? Or did they — without being told — assume that it would be in their best interest to give?

Consider a case in point: The $1,000 contribution by AFSCME.

AFSCME had been trying for years to get a foot in the door to have collective bargaining with the state. Until Walker was elected, they had little success. Walker, however, needed little convincing. Shortly after he took office, the governor issued an executive order setting up a procedure for unionizing state workers, authorizing collective bargaining for wages, fringe benefits and working conditions and establishing a new "Office of Collective Bargaining" — its workers appointed by him — to negotiate with the unions, including AFSCME.

The order was issued a little more than a year before Walker announced his Mid-Term Dinner and put out his hand for contributions. By that time, the Office of Collective Bargaining was already into the nitty gritty of making rules for representation elections and conducting negotiations which — while not binding on the legislature — effectively determined how much state employees would make.

How can a serious observer avoid wondering what was going through the minds of AFSCME officials as they wrote their check to the dinner fund? They knew how much their fate depended on people who reported directly to Walker. And they knew Walker desperately needed the money he would raise at the dinner.

And it's only natural to speculate on what Walker thought as he saw the money come in. He was getting pressure from people who were still owed money from his 1972 campaign. Some were writing letters to the newspapers, calling Walker a dead beat. The city of Springfield was threatening to sue to collect an old utility bill for a Walker campaign headquarters.

Worse, Walker knew by then that he would face an all-out challenge in the 1976 primary from Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and his organization He would need every penny he could scrape together for that fracas.

It boils down to this — Walker needed money and he took what he needed from people he had to deal with in his official role.

One needn't question the governor's personal integrity to question the wisdom of that kind of campaign funding. Many people feel Otto Kerner went through life an honest man and went to prison only because of the shenanigans of others acting on his behalf. An unscrupulous — or corrupt — aide could have put Walker in the same bind. Indeed, a grand jury in Chicago reportedly is still scanning the Walker campaign finances.

The next question is: What, if anything, can be done to reform the campaign financing system? Actually, quite a lot could be done.

For starters, the state could prohibit some types of contributions, such as outright contributions from corporations. The federal Election Code already bans such gifts.

The most frequently discussed proposals are public financing of campaigns and limiting the amount candidates may spend.

There are both practical and political reasons for calling them long shots. Practically, it would be hard to enforce spending limits. And it would be difficult to prevent frivolous candidates from running solely to get the public financing. Politically, each party fears the other could become entrenched through one combination of circumstances or another.

There is another possibility - self-policing. But it's impractical for a political newcomer without access to personal or party wealth.

Still, something should be done to put an end to the nagging question: What's the real reason for that contribution?

38/January 1980/Illinois Issues