Smoke, Mirrors, and the Firefighters "Issue"

It's hard to tell what's more surprising: that the endorsement of candidates by Firefighters Local 742 has flared up in this year's municipal election, or that it never really has before.
 
I was especially surprised to hear anyone express surprise at the union's involvement. The participation by Evanston firefighters in local elections is not at all new. I first became aware of it in, as best I recall, the early '90s. But while common knowledge among political insiders, it's not on the radar of most Evanston residents. This article is to demystify it a little bit.

 
The local, as is clear from the relatively small size of its monetary contributions, is not a large financial force in any election. It's silly to suggest that the position of any of the candidates, and perhaps especially Liz Tisdahl, is going to be purchased by $500 from the firefighters' union. The union's political support of a candidate is more important in its symbolic value, and in whatever fieldwork its members decide to offer in thir spare time -- typically, helping distribute flyers, or even knock on doors.
 
The word "PAC" is used but that's a term of art (short for "political action committee") more appropriate to federal election law. The firefighters, with respect to state and local elections, are a "political committee," just as are the committees of, for instance, all four candidates for mayor. Forming a group to have a voice in elections is not only legal, it's a constitutional right guaranteed by the first amendment, and afforded to employees in both the private and public sector.
 
As union membership as a percentage of private sector employment has fallen in the past several decades, the prominence of public-sector unions in the labor movement, and their voice in the political process, has grown. The Evanston Firemans PAC is dwarfed by the teachers' unions: the Illinois PAC for Education in the second half of 2008 gave over $1 million to state and local candidates and committees in Illinois while spending another $1 million on its own, and the Illinois Federation of Teachers was in the same league. AFSCME and SEIU are also extremely influential, especially in Democratic primaries, and compete aggressively with each other for the right to represent public employees.
 
Generally, the Evanston firefighters have been supportive of and even closely aligned with Democrats in non-municipal elections, and they have been more likely to contribute to DPOE and to committees associated with other Democratic Evanston officeholders than to candidates for alderman or mayor.
 
In federal elections, a candidate may not accept contributions from any labor union. In Illinois, there is no such limit in state or local races. However, even in federal elections, unions can and do endorse, and their political arms (if they have one) may make independent expenditures.
 
The "influence" that anyone's support has on candidates and, once elected, our officials, is hard to pin down, and we need to be careful about allegations of conflict of interest. Should candidates for 6th Ward alderman not accept contributions from 6th Ward residents, on the grounds that they'll have to make decisions affecting those residents while in office? Should candidates for mayor not accept contributions from people who own Evanston businesses? How about Evanston residents?
 
There are several important realities here. One is the truism that politics is about addition, not subtraction, and most candidates welcome support from most quarters, refusing only contributions tainted by scandal or extreme views of the contributor. A second is that campaigning at every level has become more expensive; while I laid out for a friend a scenario by which a candidate could successfully run for Evanston alderman while staying under the $3,000 trigger for forming a committee, I don't think that's possible for mayor, and the tab in state and federal legislative races has obviously gone much higher. No one seriously suggests limiting candidates to self-funding only, so unless we move to a system of public financing of elections, as reformers have long urged, candidates have to raise funds and seek support from folks who will help save money by going door-to-door. Those most likely to offer such money or time are those whose lives, homes, and livelihoods are most likely to be affected by the decisions elected officials will make. In this regard, what a group like the firefighters does simply mirrors what any voters do, except the firefighters have chosen to do it as a group, which generally gives political participants a little more oomph. This is hardly news; note our slogan at the top of this web page.
 
Right now unions, like corporations, have a right to contribute to municipal campaigns. Until Illinois law is changed, the challenge for the voter is to take any such endorsement or support in context; to discount by, yes, self-interest, and to accord weight to expertise. Yes, firefighters have a vested interest in the decisions our next Council and mayor will make, just as teachers do in school boards, and just as residents and developers do. On the other hand, I am interested in what municipal employees think about our municipal government, just as I am in what teachers think about school candidates. The firefighters were sounding alarms, for example, about our pension situation many years before the Council admitted we have a serious problem.
 
The fact that a group, most of whom don't live in Evanston, plays a part in Evanston elections, may be a factor for some. On the other hand, none of the aldermanic candidates we asked last week expressed support for requiring municipal employees to live in Evanston, as Chicago requires for its police and fire.
 
Our CSNA survey showed that union backing in municipal elections has moderate influence for most; for a significant minority, it's a negative. Probably one's reaction correlates with feelings about unions, or public employee unions, generally. I can't recall hearing a bad word ever about Evanston firefighters, generally; most people like firemen, including their own town's. It would be helpful if the reasons for the firefighters' endorsements, and their process, were a little more transparent.
 
Most political support comes with some pluses and minuses. As with most things political, shedding more light, not less, and avoiding hasty oversimplification, makes for a better discussion.

Jeff - I have a few comments on your forum about firefighters.

"Smoke, Mirrors, and the Firefighters "Issue" "

 It appears to me you are trying to minimize this issue as politics as usually.  That is what we have had in Illinois for years, plenty of individuals were quite happy with "pay for play" and many knew about it and did nothing.
 
I happy to see George Ryan in Jail, given his action killed all the children in one family.  I do not doubt the former governor will some day be joining him.
 
Jeff I am fully aware the fire fighters are doing nothing illegal under the law, I do not have to be a lawyer to understand that concept.
 
Lets look at this another way, ethics, Jeff.  Someone hands me money for my election, in a meeting, and they ask me what more will I do for them, and I say I will do nothing more for them, but I take the funds. Interesting.
 
I like people who are ethnical. while they are few and far between in city , state and federal government, I do not like someone stating business as usual is OK.
 
Lets look at your statements:
" The participation by Evanston firefighters in local elections is not at all new. I first became aware of it in, as best I recall, the early '90s. But while common knowledge among political insiders"   The word insiders. that is those who influence the elections having live here for close to twenty fives year these insiders are of no value to this community and make me sick. ( this is the same group who takes about Civility)
 
Your next statement
"The local, as is clear from the relatively small size of its monetary contributions, is not a large financial force in any election. It's silly to suggest that the position of any of the candidates, and perhaps especially Liz Tisdahl, is going to be purchased by $500 from the firefighters' union. "
 
You state "especially" Liz Tisdahl can not be purchased by $500. Can you explain this in more detail?  To me $500 and most Central Street Resident we think $500 is not a small sum of cash.  I recall it might purchase 100 yard signs.
 
"The union's political support of a candidate is more important in its symbolic value, and in whatever fieldwork its members decide to offer in thir spare time -- typically, helping distribute flyers, or even knock on doors."
 
Getting firefighters who do not live here to work for you is nice.
 
 You want to down play the use of the word "PAC" and claim it is not the same as a "political committee"  - we are not in court here. ( do they have different purposes?)
you state:
"The word "PAC" is used but that's a term of art (short for "political action committee") more appropriate to federal election law. The firefighters, with respect to state and local elections, are a "political committee," just as are the committees of, for instance, all four candidates for mayor."
 
"Forming a group to have a voice in elections is not only legal, it's a constitutional right guaranteed by the first amendment, and afforded to employees in both the private and public sector."   I have never stated it was not legal, the question I raise is whose interest is this groups work?
 
Jeff you again down play the issue of influence -
"The "influence" that anyone's support has on candidates and, once elected, our officials, is hard to pin down, and we need to be careful about allegations of conflict of interest."
Jeff when it comes to ethnics, those who are appear unethnical usually are unethnical.
How are you so certain that this is not a big influence on anyone council member, many of the dollars spent on the aldermanic election are in the range of $5000. Thus $500 to $750 ( as were given out last time, are a high percentage of one's total dollars.
 
Jeff - you are now comparing "apples to oranges" most residents do not give big dollars amounts I would like to know how many gave $500 to $750 to anyone person
"Should candidates for 6th Ward alderman not accept contributions from 6th Ward residents, on the grounds that they'll have to make decisions affecting those residents while in office?"
 
Interestingly Jeff - this statement of yours is more interesting - If someone owns a business and it is likely to need zoning relief or a liquor license - I think I would be very careful to take their funds. Here again it is about ethnics, ofcourse only political insiders will know in the further that funds were given, most residents will have no ideas as you suggested.
 "Should candidates for mayor not accept contributions from people who own Evanston businesses? How about Evanston residents?"
 
Jeff here in the problem lies, the fire figthers liveihoods depends on council members votes that is their raises, pensions, equipment, approval of jobs etc, Counicl members who have taken funds and support while legal have been influenced. There is NO getting around that. 
"Those most likely to offer such money or time are those whose lives, homes, and livelihoods are most likely to be affected by the decisions elected officials will make. In this regard, what a group like the firefighters does simply mirrors what any voters do, except the firefighters have chosen to do it as a group, which generally gives political participants a little more oomph."
 
Jeff is the Central street neighbors giving funds or support to any elected officials, my understand is your group is not doing that?
"This is hardly news; note our slogan at the top of this web page."
 
Jeff - May I propose the Central Street neighbors with the fire fighters - puts on a forum to hear fire fighters concerns. If you believe it is important to hear from firefighters.
You seem to be more interest in the politics and continue them to endorse Evanston politicians.
"It would be helpful if the reasons for the firefighters' endorsements, and their process, were a little more transparent."
 
Jeff it is clear to me you are quite OK with what is going on here - by how you have down play it. I do not like "minuses" could be why I have never won an election. 
"Most political support comes with some pluses and minuses. As with most things political, shedding more light, not less, and avoiding hasty oversimplification, makes for a better discussion."
By the way, when would you like to discuss the whole issue?
 

Junad, what I tried to do was write, for a larger audience, most whom have never run for office or even worked on a campaign in Evanston, a piece "de-mystifying" what the firefighters' union political committee is and what it does, and putting that in some context, rather than let the debate be driven by tabloid-like accusations. I avoided injecting judgment, except some skepticism about any longtime participant in Evanston politics feigning surprise.

By contrast, you posted an opinion piece. You are entitled to that. You are wrong to put words in others' mouths, or attribute to anyone views they do not hold. I realize that that's a common practice on parts of the Internet. Please don't do that here.

You do raise the larger issue my piece did not address, i.e., the propriety of government workers attempting to influence elections, or voters, at all. That's a legitimate and very interesting question that pits principles of free speech and good government, freedom of association and over-influence, against each other.

Just because I did not condemn something in an expository piece, somewhat on the dry side, does not mean I am "OK with it." Or not OK with it. I have strong feelings about pay-to-play that I assume you'd share.

E.g., What is Pay-to-Play and Why Does It Matter? and

Stronger Pay-to-Play Bill Needed. But not every political involvement is P2P.

Do you equate any political activity by a government employees' union with pay-to-play? That's an equation few will make. I won't.

We need to be vigilant against patronage operations. Yet even under the Hatch Act what the firefighters do is permitted. If you have a concrete, constructive suggestion for how the law should be changed, that will pass constitutional muster, I urge you to formulate it and work for it.

As to my small aside about Ald. Tisdahl, others (not me) have pointed out her record of giving to political candidates and causes, a matter of public record, as is her work administering a foundation. $500 as a union or other group contribution is not large; I don't believe it would sway any of the candidates for mayor in a multi-million-dollar negotiation.

There are a flowages of money in the regional political scene that are bigger, or more interesting. But there is also peril in obsessing on those, to the exclusion of other issues.

And, no, CSNA has not contributed to, and does not plan to contribute to, any candidate. But my point about collective action stands. One person spending $7 on politics has a miniscule impact on the process. If 72 people each pitch in $7, they have raised $500, and can, indeed, buy some yard signs, or do a mailing. That would apply to firemen as much as to any other group. If 200 people sign a petition or delegate someone to speak on their behalf, their voice is stronger than one person speaking only for himself. It's why the right to assemble and the right to associate are so highly protected.

My piece was intended to be neutral, presenting some facts, and reserving judgment. I believe that given the facts, Evanstonians are capable of according opinions and endorsements the weight they deserve. And I do value civility, even though I can get as frustrated as anyone.

As to a forum, CSNA is a volunteer organization. Anyone who shares our goals is free to join, and work on a committee to start a study or organize an event, such as one on the political activity or compensation of governmental employees.

The fact is that the Political Action Committe for the Firefighter's union, which makes endorsements of candidates, is in an unavodable conflict of interest when it participates in the charade of a fair endorsement process.
When city employees become too close to aldermen, the council governing process gets compromised.  Other employees of the city stay away from politics in Evanston because it is the right thing to do.  The Fire Fighters fought this basic concept years ago when it sued to become major political players in the city, claiming, sub rosa, that the First Amendment should allow them to compromise the process.
The Illinois Appellate Court agreed for reasons that are not clear to me.  If the Hatch Act (prohibiting federal employees from engaging in elective, partisan politics) survives, what say Illinois.  Apparently, we need our own Hatch Act (along with a ton of other ethics legislation).
Jeff's suggestion that the firefighters' endorsements and money is tantamount to a citizen donation to a campaign is either disingenuous or naieve in the extreme.  The campaigns that receive contributions from citizens do not set the salaries of their constituents.  Really, there is not much more to be said.
Eb