Three years ago, the Chicago Board of Ethics introduced a set of reforms that would strengthen the city’s ethics rules. Nearly three years later, 47th Ward Ald. Matt Martin’s ordinance incorporating those reforms is still waiting for a vote, as city leadership dragged its feet instead of advancing common-sense corruption-fighting measures.
That may finally change Wednesday, when Martin’s legislation is expected to come before the City Council’s Ethics and Government Oversight Committee.
One key provision, however, has been pulled from the ordinance in an effort to improve its chances of passage: closing a major loophole in limits on political donations to candidates from city contractors.
Currently, companies doing business with the city are limited to $1,500 in donations to city candidates. But the owners, partners, directors and officers of those companies face no such limit — meaning the same interests the law is meant to restrain can simply route their money through individuals instead.
This isn’t just a theoretical problem. A Better Government Association analysis of political spending in Chicago found hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations that would have been illegal under the stricter limits other major cities already enforce.
The loophole makes a mockery of a critical safeguard against the pay-to-play politics that have plagued Chicago for decades, including the Hired Truck scandal, when big donors to Mayor Richard M. Daley received millions of dollars in city contracts and did little or no work, with some even stealing asphalt paid for by taxpayers to use on private jobs.
Major cities including New York and Los Angeles have already closed this loophole. Chicago should, too.
The City Council should advance Martin’s ordinance and finally put these long-awaited ethics reforms into law. But the contractor contribution provision remains an important piece of unfinished business. We hope Council members will revisit it soon and close a loophole that leaves Chicago’s safeguards against pay-to-play politics weaker than they should be.
Alisa Kaplan, executive director, Reform for Illinois
Data center moratorium could cost Chicago
Mayor Brandon Johnson’s push for a temporary moratorium on new data centers risks becoming another example of Chicago officials making today’s politics tomorrow’s problem.
Johnson signed an executive order calling for new regulations within 90 days and urged the City Council to halt new projects while those rules are developed.
Any pause must remain temporary. Chicago has seen the long-term cost of moratoriums. A ban on school closures left Chicago Public Schools with fewer options as enrollment fell and deficits returned. Illinois also prohibited new large-scale nuclear plants for four decades as electricity demand grew.
Imagine how much better-positioned Illinois would have been to meet rising electricity demand had previous lawmakers allowed expansion of the state’s nuclear advantage instead of passing a moratorium.
Chicago should now apply that lesson to data centers by addressing concerns without cutting off future development. A City Council working group has released recommendations that can be adopted with necessary environmental and community safeguards.
Chicago’s climate, underused properties and abundant nuclear power make it well suited for tech developments. Existing data centers account for less than 0.5% of the state’s water use, while newer designs can reduce that footprint further. A moratorium would not eliminate demand. It would send investment elsewhere despite Chicago’s natural advantages.
Data centers increase employment, wages and business formation in urban areas. An investor wants to convert part of 300 W. Adams St. in the Loop, which was almost 60% vacant in 2023, into a data center. The project has received preliminary landmarks approval and would bring its own electrical infrastructure and investment to the aging property.
Policymakers should keep the city competitive for similar investments without providing property tax breaks that shift the burden onto homeowners.
Moratoriums delay difficult questions. Good policy resolves them.
Micky Horstman, communications manager, Illinois Policy Institute, and social mobility fellow, Young Voices
Breaking the ICE
Dear ICE:
a pestilence we did not request
pollution to our lungs
a vermin we cannot expel
to the refugee
you are the war criminal
to the asylum seeker
you are a terror
to the immigrant
you are the shameless thief
you are not welcome here
in Albany Park
in Chicago
on our streets
In our neighborhoods
we shall not rest until you are disarmed
may our chanting ring in your ears:
HANDS OFF
¡FUERA ICE!
Christine Anderson, Jefferson Park
Don’t impose church’s views
The Catholic Church has challenged Illinois’ so-called “right-to-die” legislation, arguing in part that the law violates First Amendment’s religious freedom and free speech rights
The Catholic Church has the right to practice religion as it wishes and to require that followers adhere to the practices required by the church. The Catholic Church has every right to decide that Catholics cannot avail themselves of the law and be considered a practicing Catholic. The church can state that availing oneself of the law is a sin against God. I have no problem with the church saying and doing this.
I do have a problem with the Catholic Church arguing that it has the right to impose its beliefs on me — a person who is not Catholic and not a member of its church. Under the First Amendment, the church has no right to impose its religious views on me. The decision, if it ever comes, for me to decide to seek physician-assisted suicide is between my family and me.
I don’t want or need the church to impose its view on me. The Catholic Church needs to concern itself with its followers and stop trying to impose its views on nonpractitioners.
Peter Felitti. Lincoln Square