Levine testimony should unsettle, anger all
The questions lurking in the background of the Tony Rezko corruption trial are, "What did the governor know and when did he know it?"
But the one screaming from the witness stand last week was, "Where's the outrage?"
Rezko has pleaded innocent in the case. He and Gov. Rod Blagojevich would have us believe that the shenanigans described by Stuart Levine involving proposals by Mercy Hospital in Crystal Lake and Edward Hospital in Naperville are the work of one bad apple, with the help of some cohorts who have since been fired.
Yet Levine's testimony -- and more convincingly -- wiretaps played in court reveal a man so comfortable that he could openly ridicule commissioners who might want to review the merits of issues rather than simply take political orders.
His description of the famous April 21, 2004, meeting at which votes were changed following a whisper campaign in front of a packed meeting chamber indicates a system so sure of itself that it casts doubt and suspicion on the work of every state board and commission.
Yet where are state leaders, who should be racing to the microphone to promise a change of approach and a clean sweep?
Instead, we see nothing, save a written response from Blagojevich's press office saying, "Stuart Levine's assertions about the governor are wrong. As we've said before, that's not how the governor does business."
But the picture Levine painted showed a good deal of Illinois business is conducted in exactly that way.
Indeed, if not for the anger and courage of Edward Hospital CEO Pam Davis, none of this might have ever come to light.
Davis went to the FBI after Levine tried to lure her by promising approval of the hospital's request in exchange for the hospital changing to a contractor named by Levine.
What if she had not?
In all likelihood, Levine would still be shaking down state boards and enjoying lavish Caribbean vacations with fellow travelers like Tony Rezko.
It is naive to think politics can be eliminated from the business of government. Political leaders appoint board members of like ideals and goals.
But what Levine described is influence peddling so entrenched that it cannot possibly be restricted to a single government panel.
As Levine's words rolled off the witness stand and into the public domain, where was the civic shame? The anger? The demand for an honest system, peopled by upright civic servants?
Are voters in this state so accustomed to official corruption they feel powerless to demand the sordid picture Levine paints be cleaned up? We hope not.
Until they demand -- and public servants of character deliver -- proof of how the rules are being changed to prevent such influence peddling, no one in Illinois should rest easily.