Editorial: Murphy’s attempt to limit public union influence

We don’t usually comment on longshot legislation.

Our philosophy, for the most part, has been to focus our opinions on proposals that have a reasonable chance of being enacted.

(Granted, that philosophy hasn’t stopped us from frequently asking the governor and the General Assembly to get serious about reducing the state’s debt.)

Sometimes, even longshot legislation is worth talking about. One of the primary roles of our editorials, after all, is to prod conversation on matters of public import.

State Sen. Matt Murphy of Palatine has introduced a bill that would prohibit unions that negotiate state contracts from making campaign contributions to elected officials involved in negotiating those contracts.

While there may be problems with the specific legislation that would need to be worked out, the concept of a prohibition like that seems like simple common sense.

It’s a direct conflict of interest for an elected official with influence over contract negotiations to receive benefits from the same union that’s sitting across the table in the negotiations.

And yet, it’s allowed to happen.

In fact, that kind of thing is commonplace in government. How many school board races, as just one example, involve union-backed candidates who may end up on the contract negotiating team once they get elected?

It’s commonplace, and it’s not unreasonable to at least ask how much the traditions of coziness influence the settlement agreements that are reached.

Murphy and Republican leaders, meanwhile, say his proposal is intended at least in part to level the playing field between private and public sector lobbying.

A similar restriction on donations was passed two years ago for private companies that do business with state agencies. Under that law, a company that does more than $50,000 of business with the state is banned from making campaign contributions to a candidate who oversees that contract.

“If a company that sells the state copiers can’t donate because it creates a conflict,” Murphy said, “how can you possibly allow unions negotiating these huge contracts to influence the politicians that approve these contracts?”

Is Murphy’s legislation going to go anywhere?

Very doubtful. Even Murphy acknowledges that.

“It’s prospects under Democratic leadership,” he told the Daily Herald’s Ryan Voyles, “are frankly pretty slim.”

But it’s an issue that ought to be debated.

“The need for reform in Illinois is unquestioned,” said Todd Maisch, vice president of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce.

We agree. And this conflict is one of the reforms that needs to be addressed. Let’s at least make it a matter for debate.