Eye On Illinois: What do Jones allegations reveal about exploitable levers of political power?

Even with more than 200 unique Eye on Illinois submissions every calendar year, it’s important to avoid harping on the same topics.

That said, for this particular beat, “lawmaker in federal court” is the gift that keeps on giving. So today we are thankful for state Sen. Emil Jones III, D-Chicago. (For an excellent summary, see Hannah Meisel’s Capitol News Illinois report at tinyurl.com/EmilJonesIII.)

As with any indicted politician, the value of understanding the situation isn’t whether a jury assigns guilt but what prosecutors’ allegations illuminate about the levers of political power and which rights and responsibilities of a given office are ripe for exploitation.

Although not part of the indictment, it’s worth noting Jones’ electoral history. In August 2008, about six months after a primary and three months before the general election, Senate President Emil Jones Jr. announced his pending General Assembly retirement. Jones III assumed his father’s spot on the November ballot, crushed a Republican, and since then hasn’t faced even a primary challenger.

The recent reelection came six weeks after his 2022 indictment on allegations of bribery and lying to the FBI. After introducing a bill to open a statewide study of traffic cameras, Jones later agreed to limit the scope to Chicago. According to prosecutors, Jones’ strategic shift is connected to a dinner with the co-founder of a red-light camera company worried further regulations would hamper business.

From that private conversation came efforts to furtively funnel $5,000 into Jones’ campaign fund while also securing a job for a legislative intern. That kid allegedly earned $1,800 for a no-work job, which ended when FBI agents interviewed Jones. The bill stalled.

Compared to other federal probes that involve enacted laws, loads of cash and truly powerful officials, the Jones allegations are peanuts. Yet the idea that just a few thousand dollars could shift a senator’s focus from the best interests of constituents to the personal bottom line is the exact thing that undercuts faith in all elected officials.

Is it practical to ban lawmakers from making job recommendations? If so, would it be limited to interns and employees? Relatives of donors? Literally anyone? Perhaps a Billy Graham-style rule banning one-on-one meetings between lawmakers and business interests. That would probably require much more disclosure about who knows whom – after all, can we really legislate friendships? Or maybe personal dinners are OK with post-meeting recusal mandates.

In 2023, Illinois enacted new limits on the political involvement of companies hawking traffic cameras, but many other industries are equally ripe for corruption without even those shallow guardrails.

Jones’ story underscores the importance of well-staffed federal prosecutors’ offices and willing informants. Furthermore, it reminds us that even well-intentioned private business regulations create influence-peddling opportunities.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.