The state of the State                                       

Ethics reform moves slowly up the hill By JENNIFER HALPERIN

"In the past it's been like running into a brick wall over and over," said Litsey, 32, of her job as executive director of Illinois Common Cause. "It's kind of like Sisyphus. Every time you think you're getting somewhere, you find yourself going backward."

Such is the mind-set of many lobbyists in Springfield this time of year when they see much-hyped bill introductions turn into long-shot proposals that may never get called for a vote. This year, though, with so many high-profile ethics initiatives floating around the Capitol, Litsey said something should emerge victorious on the ethics front. "Public outrage is too great," she said. "If nothing is passed at all, it would be a major travesty."

As lawmakers settled in for the final, hectic weeks of the spring legislative session, Litsey was "cautiously optimistic." Unlike some others, she wasn't discouraged by the way House and Senate committees had gutted several ethics bills. "Whenever you're talking about a big issue, whether it's casinos, airports, that's how it's handled — with vehicle bills," said the former Citizens Utility Board (CUB) lobbyist and one-time staff member in Addison for House Minority Leader Lee A. Daniels (R-46, Elmhurst).

"I'm somewhat encouraged, actually, that the bills are still around," Litsey said in April. "What's amazing is that ethics and reform have been receiving more attention this year than in the last 20 years. Usually around April, Common Cause can pack up our bags and go home."

What is discouraging, she said, is that just one of the nearly 80 ethics-related bills introduced this year received "a legitimate hearing." "These bills just cannot get a fair hearing," said Litsey, who has held her current job since January 1, 1992. "There's so much gamesmanship, so much tight control by leadership. Bills are constantly being stripped, amended, recombined into other bills; there's no real debate or discussion of their merits."

She said her past experience in the political arena, especially with CUB, made her realize that ethics reform is important not just for its own sake but as a means of reaching various ends.

"Working for CUB, I was the only lobbyist there on behalf of ratepayers," she said. "There were over 40 lobbyists for utilities, and they had a lot of influence over lawmakers by virtue of the jobs and influence they wield. That gave me a firsthand view of special interest money's influence. My thought was: A lot of the groups I'm interested in — women's groups, environmental issues — aren't going to get anywhere without the Common Cause agenda. Until we get a level playing field, it's the large-money political action committees that are always going to win."

With that in mind, Litsey has tried to refocus her group's efforts a bit. "What we've decided to do is let the public know the games the politicians are playing — that these bills are being put together in back rooms, swept under the rug," she said. "That's more important than their content. We all know we need reform in Illinois. All you need to do is pick up a newspaper any day to see what a mess it is."

Supposedly that sentiment is what spurred voters across the nation to turn to Ross Perot as an alternative to politics as usual and what helped elect a herd of newcomers to the Illinois legis-

8/May 1993/Illinois Issues

lature. But now, six months later, it's becoming clear the large number of freshmen lawmakers haven't spurred much of an ethics-oriented revolution in Springfield.

"If we get ethics bills to a vote, we can pass them because no legislator wants to be on the record opposing ethics reform," Litsey said. "We know we have the votes to pass. Leadership knows we have the votes. We just can't get them to a vote. We may have every freshman, every rank-and-file member on our side, but if the House or Senate leader has ordered a committee chairman not to call a bill, we're stuck." Which comes as no suprise to anyone familiar with the workings of the Illinois General Assembly.

When lawmakers are in session, Springfield is overrun with people who love power. The clout in both chambers is tightly held by the partisan leaders, and freshmen legislators rarely have entree to the power that decides what gets done.

Of the nearly 80 ethics-related bills introduced in the legislature this year, Litsey and others say Secy. of State George H. Ryan's package has the best chance of passing. Ryan's proposals include broadening the definition of lobbyist to include anyone who is paid to try to influence constitutional officers or the administrators and staff working for them. He also wants reports required for all lobbying expenditures over $25, which Litsey hopes will present a more accurate picture than does the current system. For example, under current law, the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association reported only $147 in lobbying expenses in 1992. Its political action committee, on the other hand, reported contributing $486,000 to last year's legislative election campaigns.

"At last we may see a grain of real reform," Litsey said. But she realizes that if any ethics proposals become law this year, the path won't necessarily be paved for more such laws in the future. "If we pass something, legislators may not feel the need to pass another measure for another 10 years."

So while Litsey may finally push her boulder to the summit, she could find herself next year in the same arduous process, pushing all the other ethics rocks still waiting in the mud at the bottom of the hill. *

May 1993/Illinois Issues/9