Prairie State Wire

September 13, 2022 -  Yesterday morning, Attorney General candidate Tom Devore joined Dan Proft and Amy Jacobsen on 560-AM to discuss the wake up call Illinoisans have gotten with regard to Democrats’ Orwellian “SAFE-T Act.” He also laid out the case about how Governor Pritzker - who holds millions of dollars in private contracts with the state - is in violation of the state’s Gift Ban Act. 

Listen to the full interview here. 

Key Points

On the SAFE-T Act: 

It’s the biggest conversation in the state right now. I travel the state north to south. Everyone is talking about it. Kids are talking about it. It’s unbelievable. Every prosecutor and sheriff across the state is beside themselves right now about how to deal with this… They’re not sure what to do. 

The legislature passed this, so it is a little unclear what the Attorney General can do - assuming we have a new Attorney General. I am hoping the discretion of the States Attorneys and judges across the state can have a significant impact. Certainly, the AG’s office needs to be working with the legislature to wipe out some of this… but this is one of those things that sneaks up on us if we’re not paying attention.

We, as people of this state, think that our elected officials are more prescient and have wisdom. But they don’t have any more or less than average, everyday people. I guarantee you there was pretty much a Nancy Pelosi moment here, where [the attitude was] “we’ve got to pass this to see what’s in it,” and didn’t realize what they were doing. And now they’re all paralyzed… out of fear looking like a bunch of fools, they’re paralyzed. 

On the issue of Governor Pritzker gifting state employees in his office $1.5 million: 

Governor Pritzker is not giving anyone “salary supplements.” He’s giving them a gift. To break this down - you can look into “what is a gift,” you can look at the IRS code, etc. - anytime you give someone something, money or whatever, without expecting anything back from them of equal return, that’s a gift. 

So when JB Pritzker - directly or indirectly - gives money to these people, that’s a private transfer of money and there is nothing given in exchange for that. He can put a label on it of whatever he wants, but it’s not a supplement of salary. That is a red herring that they’ve created. It is absolutely a transfer of money to these state employees from a private individual in exchange for nothing. And the fact that he’s the governor is irrelevant. This is a private citizen, a private entity, gifting money to state employees. It’s an absolute gift. The next question is whether he’s a prohibited source or not.  And people should stop calling it a supplement of salary. It’s not. The legislature - on behalf of the people - defines how much money our state employees get paid for the services they provide. We deem what is adequate. That is what they get paid. He’s gifting them money. The only question, again, is whether it’s a prohibited source or not. 

Proft: So if he’s a prohibited source, then it’s in violation of the state’s Gift Ban Act. 

Devore: Exactly. What if JB Pritzker decided, ‘well, I don’t think the legislators make enough money, so I’m going to supplement their salaries? What if Com-Ed said, “Well, we don’t think these 15 officials of Governor Pritzker make enough money. We’re going to supplement their salary… It starts becoming more glaring. So take the fact that it’s the governor out of the question. This private organization of the Governor, that he controls, is giving them money for nothing. 

Proft: So that gets to the question: If these employees are under his charge, is gifting money to them different than gifting money to, say, state legislators. 

Devore: Keeping in mind that the Gift Ban Act is about not necessarily prohibiting impropriety, but taking the appearance of impropriety away. So, if you look at the statute, a prohibited source is subjected to four different types of criteria. One of which is: Is the source - and, in this case, the source is JB Pritzker - so is JB Pritzker doing business or trying to do business with the state? Of course he is. He has billions of dollars in contracts with the state. 

And the analysis is not, ‘Well, ok… the money that these people are getting isn’t really causing any definitive impropriety.’ That’s not the analysis of the law.  JB Pritzker is doing business with the state. 

The second criteria that I think applies is: are JB’s interests (it says interests, that is a very broad term. It could be political interests, personal interests, financial interests) are his interests substantially impacted by the performance of these employees? There are all kinds of conversation points about that. Even his political interests are substantially impacted by these people. The question about loyalty… about them being loyal to him and not the people… You could put that right into the definition of a prohibited source. It fits right in there.