Chicago aldermen advanced an ethics ordinance this week that would punish lobbyists for contributions to political campaigns of mayoral candidates, in another instance of the City Council moving to buck Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration.
Chaired by Johnson ally Ald. Matt Martin, 47th, the Ethics Committee unanimously approved the measure Thursday to fine or suspend lobbyists who violate a rule already codified in a 2011 executive order banning them from making campaign contributions to a mayor’s political fund. The legislation now heads to a final City Council vote this month.
The committee acted after the city ethics board in April dropped several cases of registered lobbyists improperly donating to Johnson’s political committee because the body lacked the legal authority to enforce the 2011 rules. Aldermen voted in favor of the ordinance despite the Johnson administration clashing with Martin over codifying the restrictions.
“The mayor’s office made clear that they did not want to move on anything, and even though I repeatedly asked for suggested edits so that we can find a mutually agreeable solution, they declined to do so,” Martin told reporters after the vote. “They made clear that there were not any changes that they could suggest that would get them on board … and at the end of the day, it’s important for me to move this forward.”
Other aldermen and good government advocates also admonished Johnson’s team for not supporting the measure and said sitting on it would move ethics reform at City Hall backwards.
However, Johnson’s office released a statement Friday refuting that the mayor opposed tightening up rules on lobbyist contributions, instead claiming Martin and others were unwilling to expand the ordinance to include aldermen and other elected officials.
“An ethics ordinance targeting a specific official — as opposed to elected officials as a group — is unusual and a potential missed opportunity to implement best practices and expand the language to additional City of Chicago elected officials,” Johnson spokesman Ronnie Reese wrote. “We appreciate members of the Council expressing their commitment to ethics reform, and we are hopeful they will be open to changes applicable to our entire body of leadership.”
Martin told the Tribune Friday afternoon “that’s not accurate,” asserting that the administration did not reach out with that request until Monday — after he and the Board of Ethics had workshopped the legislation for over a month. The alderman also said Johnson’s team did not send him any concrete suggestions on how to revise the ordinance.
“You can’t make an 11th-hour request when something very discrete and well-considered has been in the queue for a really long time,” Martin said. “It’s disappointing that ethics reform hasn’t been a priority for the Johnson administration. And it’s even more concerning that they actively tried to roll back a policy that has been on the books since 2011 and has spanned three mayoral administrations.”
Throughout the committee meeting, the only allusion to a sticking point over including aldermen too was from Ald. Chris Taliaferro, 29th, who asked Chicago Board of Ethics executive director Steve Berlin if his office recommended the policy be extended to include other elected officials. Berlin replied that “there’s been no such recommendation” and the goal was simply to codify the 2011 executive order on mayors, though he added “there’s nothing precluding” aldermen from getting added to the fold later.
Under the proposal, a lobbyist would be fined three times the amount of the contribution unless it is returned within 10 days, and the second violation could net a 90-day suspension for the lobbyist.
And unlike the 2011 executive order by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the ban would extend to not just sitting mayors but all mayoral candidates. In addition, the prohibition would apply to any business that hired a lobbyist in the year preceding the contribution or any entity in which the lobbyist has over 7.5% ownership.
Martin, a progressive who was tapped by Johnson to lead the Ethics Committee, has recently spoken out against the administration about what he said was inaction over the issue, from filling ethics board vacancies to advancing much-needed reform that he had hoped to tackle this spring. On Thursday, the committee approved two of Johnson’s ethics board appointees, a month after Martin called out the administration for taking too long.
Beyond a ban on lobbyists contributing to the mayor or mayoral candidates, Martin and the ethics board support a sweeping package of reforms that would tighten rules for city contractors, campaign fundraising and advertising. That legislation remains stalled in committee.
The changes would include a ban on contractors who work for aldermen from getting involved in any city decisions that benefit their own financial interests, or that benefit other clients or employers. That was spurred by Tribune reporting about the widespread use of aldermanic expense accounts to hire contractors.
The issue of toughening up City Hall’s ethics code has been a perennial talking point among elected officials but took on new urgency after the 2019 FBI raid on now-retired and convicted Ald. Edward Burke shone a spotlight on public corruption. At one point during that term, three sitting aldermen — Burke and Alds. Carrie Austin and Patrick Daley Thompson — were under indictment on corruption charges.
On Thursday, their former colleagues took jabs at the Johnson administration, arguing the mayor is undoing progress in eradicating City Hall’s notorious history of pay-to-play politics.
“Well, I want to applaud the chairman for his attempts to work with the administration,” said Ald. Brendan Reilly, 42nd, a frequent Johnson critic. “It’s a shame that this administration is not embracing a good ethics policy that was put in place by a predecessor. That’s, I think, a missed opportunity.”
During the public comment portion of Thursday’s meeting, Bryan Zarou, policy director at the Better Government Association, said the Johnson administration also stonewalled his organization, which backs the ordinance. Berlin, meanwhile, noted that “in my 30-plus years with the Board of Ethics and in this rarefied field of law — government ethics and campaign financing — I have not seen an ethics reform walked or rolled back.”
The Tribune’s Jake Sheridan and A.D. Quig contributed reporting.
ayin@chicagotribune.com
