The arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and the accusations against him, have brought suggestions that Illinois is in a league of its own when it comes to government corruption. Thomas Rudolph is a professor of political science who teaches a course on state government. He makes frequent use of examples from Illinois politics and history in his classes. He also has studied issues related to campaign finance and trust in government. Rudolph was interviewed by News Bureau social sciences editor Craig Chamberlain.
Does dirty dealing pervade Illinois politics, from small towns to the Statehouse, or is it an exception that has become perceived as the rule because of high-profile cases such as Blagojevich’s?
Political corruption in Illinois has, historically speaking, not been limited to the governor’s office. Nor is corruption solely a recent phenomenon. There are well-known examples of bribery and corruption involving state representatives, aldermen, mayors, and even judges. Although I think it is fair to say that corruption has touched every level of government in Illinois at one time or another, I think it would be unfair to say that corruption in Illinois politics is pervasive. The recent slew of high-profile cases notwithstanding, I believe that the vast majority of Illinois officeholders are honorable public servants.
Is there anything citizens can do to clean up Illinois politics? And will the black eye of Blagojevich’s arrest, coming two years after the conviction of former Gov. George Ryan, help efforts to finally restore ethics?
Illinois residents have always had the power to clean up corruption after the fact. Elections give voters regular opportunities to throw corrupt politicians out of office. It is the voters’ obligation and responsibility to take advantage of those opportunities and exercise their right to punish those who violate the public trust. Although it may be voters’ responsibility to clean up after a mess, it is lawmakers’ responsibility to help prevent the mess in the first place. This may require more stringent ethics legislation, including enhanced oversight and enforcement. Blagojevich’s current scandal, combined with that of his predecessor, might ultimately help to create the pressure needed to pass such legislation.
Are there factors that make Illinois as a state more prone to the influence of money and the corruption that can often flow from that?
Yes, there are a number of contextual factors that might make Illinois more prone to the influence of money. First, at least at the state level, Illinois has traditionally had a highly competitive two-party system. In other words, both Republican and Democratic candidates have usually had a realistic chance of winning statewide office. Such competition can raise the stakes of winning. Second, Illinois is an expensive state in which to mount a statewide campaign. The combination of a geographically diverse state and an expensive media market in Chicago means that successful statewide candidates have to raises tens of millions of dollars to win. This creates enormous pressure on candidates to raise ever-increasing sums of money. Third, the regulatory environment in Illinois concerning campaign finance is more lax than in many other states. Unlike many other states, Illinois does not have limits on campaign contributions.
What influence does scandal like this have on voters’ basic trust in government and in its ability to get things done? Is this of special concern in the current climate of economic crisis?
Empirical research in political science has frequently shown that political scandals have a negative influence on public trust in government. Why is trust important? Trust in government is, to some extent, an expression of the public’s willingness to believe government promises about the future consequences of a new or untested policy. If the government does not enjoy public trust, it can be difficult for lawmakers to mobilize public support on behalf of legislation that may require people to sacrifice their economic or ideological interests for the common good. Without public trust, a government may be given less leeway by the public to deal with the problems that it faces. Without such leeway, the government may be constrained in its ability to effectively deal with challenges such as the current economic crisis.
This article was imported from a previous version of the News Bureau website. Please email news@illinois.edu to report missing photos and/or photo credits.
