Changing the Chicago Way: Easier Said than Done

Dick Simpson recently penned a column in which he prescribed several remedies for rooting out the systemic corruption in Chicago politics. Unwittingly, Simpson may have encapsulated just how difficult the task maybe. Here are the six remedies...

First, elect reform candidates to top government positions like mayor, county board president, and governor. Men and women who run on a reform platform but who keep their promises. They can then use the power of their offices to eliminate patronage, pay-to-play government contracts, and services delivered as payoffs.

Second, develop a strong reform bloc of legislators in our legislative bodies and provide them with the public support to enact comprehensive campaign and government reform legislation.

Third, strengthen the inspector general offices at all levels of government to weed out the bad officials and waste. The U.S. attorney's office can't be the only cor- ruption fighters in the state if we are to bring change.

Fourth, enact public campaign financing for all major state and local government offices. Until the ties between campaign contributions and government favors, jobs, and contracts are severed, no true reform will be possible.

Fifth, teach about public corruption and honest, ethical government in the schools. Just as Charles Wacker's Manual of the Plan of Chicago taught the principles of the Burnham Plan to generations of Chicago public school students who then implemented those plans and later passed the bond issues to pay for them, we must teach students the cost and cure of corruption.

Sixth, finally, we must continue to prosecute and convict corrupt officials and those who bribe them.

Each of his remedies is sensible and necessary. Each of his remedies can also be classified under the "easier said than done" category. Let's take them one at a time.

First, we need to elect truly reform minded candidates. This goes without saying however there are scant few of those roaming around Chicago politics. Furthermore, just about everyone presents themselves as a reformer and most turn out to be nothing more than the typical corrupt politician. Remember, it was Rod Blagojevich, himself, that ran under the theme of reform in 2002. Trying to find a steady diet of reform minded candidates in Chicago is sort of like trying to find a sober person at midnight on New Year's.

Second, we need to create a bloc of reform minded candidates in the legislature. Well, if the first is damn near impossible to achieve, what are the odds we could achieve the second? Once again, Simpson is absolutely accurate and also deluding himself if he thinks that this has any realistic chance of being achieved.

Simpson is also correct that more than merely the U.S. Attorney need to be serious about fighting corruption. I am not sure that the office needs any official strengthening. I believe the Solicitor General's office doesn't fight corruption because those in it turn a blind eye on purpose. In fact, I would go so far as to include the Illinois Attorney General and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office as other parts of the government apparatus that should do a better job of fighting corruption. The problem is that these offices are often infected with members of the very corrupt Illinois political machine that perpetuates the corruption. Ultimately, to achieve number three, one and two would need to be achieved, and therein lies the rub.

Simpson is also correct that tougher campaign finance laws need to be enacted. Yet, it is the Governor's office and the legislature that would need to enact them. Yet, they are all infected with parties tied to the very corrupt political machine that needs to be overseen. What are the odds that a group of corrupt politicians will create any laws that will make it more difficult for them to commit corruption? Once gain, the fourth idea is embedded in successfully completing the first idea. Once again, therein lies the rub.

The fifth idea is a good idea and a worthy idea. Yet, whatever effects it may have they won't be felt in the political system for decades.

The sixth part is the only one that currently has any chance of succeeding. As long as Patrick Fitzgerald is the U.S. Attorney, we should have at least one crusading watch dog to keep an eye on the corruption. Yet, Fitzgerald is likely to be replaced at some point during Obama's Presidency. What are the chances his replacement will be nearly the crusader that Fitzgerald has been?

As such, in one brief column, Dick Simpson just laid out why it will be so difficult to root out the corruption in Chicago. I have said before that I do have hope for the city in its fight against corruption, but make no mistake, this task is monumental and much easier said than done.