Even after 11 years, it was still a tacky move by Topinka

As a rule, I don’t blog about state or national elections.

And as a rule, I don’t carry a grudge.

But there’s always an exception.

It used to be the race for Illinois Treasurer, but when Judy Barr Topinka decided to be the state’s comptroller, that became the exception.

As I said, I don’t carry a grudge, but there are some things that kind of stick with you for a long time.

Like politicians who capitalize on someone’s grief.  At the taxpayers’ expense.

As Topinka did.

The story unfolded 11 years ago next month when my mother died.  My dad had died years before, so my sister and I were now parentless, not something anyone wants to look forward to, but it is part of the lifecycle landscape.

For the sake of argument, my mother died on a Monday, was buried on Wednesday.  The following Tuesday, less than a week after the funeral, I received a formal resolution expressing condolences on the death of Jean Zoller.  At state expense.  In a state envelope.

Really? This from the public official who is now bemoaning the state of Illinois’ coffers?

I contacted Topinka’s office and talked with some flack who told me that it’s not unusual for Topinka to do this.

So how does she select the families to barge in on during a time of grief?

No answer.

My guess is that, because of my mother’s longtime career, the Chicago Sun-Times ran an exceptional obituary.  And yes, they quoted me.

So let’s work through this.  A seemingly successful business woman from the northern suburbs dies, with a child among the survivors who lives in the northwestern burbs – that could mean votes – or better yet – campaign donations.

Just a theory.  Whether it’s accurate or not, the mere fact that a public servant sees fit to barge in on a constituent’s grief is, to quote Brandon Marshall, unacceptable.

I can’t help but wonder one thing.  I wonder if she sends condolence resolutions to children in Englewood or Pilsen when their parents die?  How about East St. Louis? Or Rockford.

I doubt it.

If you’re going to serve the people, you need to serve all of the people.

All of the time.  

Transparency by politicians needs to start during the campaign

Last Tuesday was National News Engagement Day, a day dedicated to promoting newspaper readership by Americans, especially young people who seem to be oblivious to the need to be informed.

                In fact, according to a 2012 study by the Pew Research Center found that 29% of those younger than 25 say they got no news the day before they were questioned either from digital news platforms, including cell phones and social networks, or traditional news platforms. In essence, they were news free. While that number has dropped somewhat since 2010, the concern remains that a substantial number of young people may not prepared to make civic decisions.

                Which should be alarming.

                Sponsored by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, a focus of National Newspaper Engagement Day was not to have people become ‘news consumers’ for the sake of reading, but to become informed citizens so they can make strong civic decisions.  Like voting.

                A key part of an educated citizenry is giving them viable, independent and transparent information.  Proponents of News Literacy, such as me, realize that news consumers today just don’t take the time to critically think about what they’re reading.

                If voters, let along young voters, rely solely on campaign material, there’s more than a slight chance they’ll be making a one-sided decision.  That, however, is the nature of campaign material, because, after all, that’s the nature of campaign.

                What is concerning is the lack of transparency by candidates who seemingly accept the support from anyone who tosses a check their way.

                Take for example, the race for state representative in the 59th District, which pits incumbent Democrat Carol Sente against newcomer, Republican Leslie Munger.  The campaign has been brutal – which seems to be the norm these days – funded mostly by each candidate’s party; Sente by the democrats, Munger by the republicans.

                For the most part.

                Much of Munger’s campaign material is paid for by the “Liberty Principles PAC” (Political Action Committee). The what?  Good question.

                Information about the Liberty Principles PAC is limited through internet searches.  While some financial information appears to be available, there does not appear to be a mission statement or other statement of purpose available.

                Interestingly enough, if you check out the return address, you find that it’s listed to Dan Proft, who is described at various internet sites as a morning talk show host, entrepreneur, and 2010 Republican candidate for governor.  It’s also interesting that while the campaign material on Munger’s behalf is listed as coming from “Liberty Principles PAC”, the statement of organization filed with the state of Illinois in 2011 list the organization as “Illinois Liberty PAC” – but still, no indication as to what the organization believes in and why it is helping with the bankrolling of Munger.

                The House Majority PAC supports democrats and notes on its mailings that it does so without the authorization of any candidate or candidate’s committee.  Liberty Principles PAC makes no such disclosure.

                It would make sense, I suppose, if political candidates who vow to be transparent public officials, did so during their campaigns so voters knew what, or who, was behind the money that flows like water into an election, especially a local or regional election.

                Voters should be subject to transparency by those, as noted, who say they are.  If candidates accept cash from PACs, they should explain not only reveal who gave it to them, but should provide information behind the PAC’s motives.

                The late Will Rogers once said that “all I know is what I read in the papers.”

                Some people think that’s scary.

                What’s scary is if people claim “all I know is what I read in the campaign flyers.”