The Tribune's masterful job of detailing much of the "pork" in the $45 billion state capital construction plan (“Inside Illinois lawmakers’ pork-barrel frenzy: Pickleball courts, dog parks and clout,” June 9) missed an important part of the story — the source of money to pay for these projects. I find it more than a little disingenuous of Gov. J.B. Pritzker and his super-majority Democrats to declare the existing "flat" state income tax anathema yet, at the same time, pass a dozen or more increases on fees and taxes on everything from gambling to parking, (not to mention the state's sales tax), all of which are de facto "flat taxes."
The new tax increases on things like gas, cigarettes, and liquor will hurt the poor and working class disproportionately, and drive yet more border town businesses to close as their would-be customers travel a few miles to make their purchases — even more often than they already do. In short, Pritzker's "progressive tax" hypocrisy is already there for all to see. What will come into earshot clearly and quickly is the old cry of "unanticipated tax revenue short fall" as those flat taxes and fees make their predictable impact on Illinois taxpayers.
—Tom Sharp, Chicago
Fight corruption? Elect more women
Former Ald. Willie Cochran’s attorney, Chris Grohman, has asked that a sentence of home confinement be imposed on the former city council member. “Since sending the previous aldermen to jail has not done anything to curb Chicago’s tidal wave of aldermanic corruption cases, there is no reason to think that sending Mr. Cochran to jail will,” Grohman wrote in a sentencing memo. that sought (“In seeking home arrest, convicted ex-Ald. Willie Cochran says prison hasn’t stopped corruption at City Hall,” June 9)
Mr. Grohman is correct that lengthy prison sentences alone do not appear to deter financial crimes, including public corruption. As voters and taxpayers in the city of Chicago, therefore, we must ask ourselves: what can we do to stave off more of the same sort of corruption and financial fraud that has stained our city’s reputation and stymied its growth and prosperity?
An analysis of past aldermanic corruption cases provides an answer: elect more women.
Between 1971—the first year in which a woman served on the Chicago City Council— and 2018, 33 aldermen were convicted of federal corruption offenses. More than 250 individuals have served in the City Council during that time. In other words, a worrisome 13.1% of all aldermen during this period have been convicted of crimes of corruption.
Of those 33 convicted aldermen, three were women, or 9.09%. In total, 48 women served in the City Council during this time.
In the same period, 204 men served in the City Council, with 30 corruption convictions among them.
The explanations for this divide are many, ranging from sexist notions that the “fairer sex” is inherently less corrupt to biases among prosecutors and juries that result in fewer charges and convictions of women. The likeliest explanation, however, is a historical one, based in Chicago’s tradition of male-dominated patronage networks.
Homophily, or the notion that “birds of a feather flock together,” is an age-old phenomenon. Patronage systems, like corruption, are a system of homophily based on trust. Mutual loyalty results in mutual rewards. Traditionally excluded from ward jobs and patronage appointments, Chicago women have historically had fewer opportunities to benefit from the Chicago way than their male counterparts. It’s not that one gender is not inherently more or less corrupt than the other; rather, gendered patronage networks are antithetical to good governance. Instead of patronage systems, professional networks based on merit are optimal, allowing the cream to rise to the top irrespective of patrons or clout.
In 1776, Abigail Adams urged her husband John to “Remember the ladies … Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.” Too many Chicago city councilmen, benefiting from a tradition of patronage and power, have abused the public trust. Mr. Cochran’s sentence lies only with the judge, but the opportunity to turn a page in Chicago’s history lies with the voters. Electing more women to the City Council may be part of the solution.
—Juliet S. Sorensen, director, Bluhm Legal Clinic; Associate Dean for Clinical Education, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law