The major candidates for attorney general met recently with the Tribune’s editorial board in a joint session. Today, edited transcripts of their remarks appear on the Commentary page. Here is what Democrat Lisa Madigan and Republican Joe Birkett said about public trust.
Chicago Tribune: Lisa, would you address the issue about public integrity and public trust? You have said that you would recuse yourself from investigations involving your father or friends of your father. How can voters be assured that you could be effective if you have to recuse yourself from some of the most important investigations of the attorney general’s office?
Lisa Madigan: The question you ask is, what can we do in terms of conflicts of interest. We need to recognize that everybody in government comes in with certain longstanding relationships. I have been very clear that I will recuse myself if there are allegations brought to my office regarding my father (House Speaker Michael Madigan). In that situation, there are numerous ways to handle it–there’s the ability to appoint a special prosecutor, if we had an independent state ethics commission it could handle investigations, or the federal government can handle investigations.
Everybody comes to their position with a series of relationships. Mr. Birkett will come to the office of attorney general, if he wins, with a relationship with (House Republican Leader) Lee Daniels. (Republican gubernatorial candidate) Jim Ryan currently has a relationship with (Gov.) George Ryan.
(The attorney general’s office) did not seek action that took place at the state level in terms of going after the license-for-bribes scandal. Instead, public corruption has been handled by the federal government.
We have not been willing to take the responsibility to clean up our own back yard, which I think we have to do. And it’s very clear in the attorney general’s statute that we have the authority to investigate and prosecute people who misuse public funds. But one of the only ways to do that is by expanding the statewide grand jury, which would cover issues of public corruption.
Chicago Tribune: Lisa, you got $50,000 from the two sons of the judge (Cook County Circuit Court Judge Sheldon Harris) who was endorsed by Michael Madigan. You gave $25,000 back apparently because of the political views of one of the two young men. Why didn’t you give the other $25,000 back? Wasn’t it clear that the judge, through his family, was trying to buy an endorsement?
Lisa Madigan: No. Andrew Harris and David Harris are two independently wealthy men. Their support of my campaign had absolutely nothing to do with their father.
Chicago Tribune: They’ve never been involved in politics. They’ve seen you perhaps once. Half of this comes a month before the endorsement (of Judge Harris, who was campaigning for the Cook County bench), half of it comes after the endorsement. How can you say it had nothing to do with trying to purchase the endorsement?
Lisa Madigan: Because there’s absolutely no evidence that this had anything to do with the endorsement. Their support of me is similar to the support that I’ve received from a wide group of people from across the state of Illinois. I have people who contribute to my campaign in far greater amounts who’ve never voted. But people who I meet, people who see me speak, people who are concerned about making sure that we have somebody in state government who wants to help people, are willing to be supportive and I’m proud of the support.
But you’re absolutely accurate. I returned $25,000 by giving it out to groups that work against hate because I thought that was the right thing to do.
Chicago Tribune: Joe, at the same time you accepted and apparently solicited a $10,000 loan from a judge. If you work in a court system where impartiality is one of the most critical elements, why should the public expect impartiality from a judge who gave you $10,000?
Joe Birkett: Obviously, that question has been raised and I think it is raised as an attempt to distract attention from my opponent’s issues. But let me address that question. (DuPage Circuit Judge) Jack Elsner loaned me $10,000 shortly before the primary. As you know, it has been very difficult to raise money, in part due to the influence and muscling of my opponent’s father.
The loan is a loan that will be repaid. Jack Elsner has not heard a criminal case in four years. If there was any case in front of him involving my office, the loan would be disclosed and there would be a substitution of judge.
But I’ve known Jack for 21 years. He is a friend. He is a personal friend. He is a social friend. He is a friend who loaned me $10,000. There’s no violation of the law. The loan was disclosed, it was not hidden.
I suggest the evidence is that the Harris brothers’ contributions are money laundering on its face–that’s what it appears to be to me.
Chicago Tribune: I still want to go back to why should anyone trust the decisions of a judge who has a $10,000 investment in the state’s attorney’s office of DuPage County?
Joe Birkett: Again, he’s not hearing cases that involve me. It’s a loan, it will be repaid. It was disclosed. It wasn’t brought up during the primary. It’s my opponent’s attempt to distract attention from the issues concerning . . . trial lawyers, city and county workers she doesn’t even know who are contributing a percentage of their income to her campaign because they’re concerned about the ramifications if they don’t. Those are serious issues. And to the degree that anybody has a concern about the loan, I disclosed it. I don’t feel it was in any way improper. There’s no ethical violation.
