On Friday, we published the first part of my email interviews with the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination to the United States Senate from Illinois. Today, here's the rest.
[Ground rules: There were none, really. I didn't tell either candidate of a recommended length for their answers, and I have not edited their answers or otherwise added any links -- what you see, they provided. You'll see that I asked some of the same questions of each candidate, not that either knew which. The interviews were spread out for both candidates over a two-week period, given that they do lead busy lives right now, and I appreciate the time they've given us.]
David Hoffman, 42, is the Inspector General of Chicago. Before that, he served from 1997-2005 as an Assistant United States Attorney, where he was appointed by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as Deputy Chief of the Narcotics and Gangs Section.
Q: Implicit in the last part of that [previous] answer is that voters shouldn't trust your rivals in the primary. Is that what you're saying?
Hoffman: What we are saying is voters should consider the records and make their own decisions about who they can trust.
Q: Many in our community have been frustrated at what they see both as the slow pace of change in Washington and how the Senate seems to water down the best proposals along the way -- that it is the most conservative members of our party rather than its core who seem to control policy decisions. What would you do to change things as a freshman Senator, and are there structural problems with the Senate itself which need fixing?
Hoffman: There are some problems that are driven by political ideology, like the Stupak Amendment, but the larger problem that I see is the amount of money being spent by special interest groups to water down good legislation. If we want to see the passage of more progressive legislation, we are going to have to address the issue of how money is used to influence the political process.
Before I go into the discussion about the corrosive influence of money in politics, I want to share my experience working on very good legislation here in Illinois that was watered down and passed under the banner of “reform.”
Prior to putting my name on the ballot to run for this seat, I was asked by then Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn to join the Illinois Reform Commission. The commission was tasked with putting forward recommendations to the Illinois General Assembly that would end the pay-to-play system in Springfield and clean up the contracting and hiring processes in Illinois. You can read the full report here.
After submitting this comprehensive report, a proposal that would have created sweeping political reforms, the Illinois General Assembly wrote their own, watered down version of the bill. We learned of the watered down version only hours before it was to be voted on. Members of the Illinois Reform Commission had to scramble in the dead of night to read the bill as we were packing our bags and driving down to Springfield. Ultimately, Illinois voters got much less than they deserved because those in power wanted to protect that power. This business of protecting each other and rewarding campaign contributors, often the clouted and connected, is what has to change.
One issue that Kossacks are familiar with is the ongoing debate over healthcare reform. Like many of you, I have watched the bill deteriorate dramatically once it reached the Senate. Everyone here knows that the people who are opposed to a public option in the healthcare reform bill are opposed because they are being lobbied hard by a healthcare industry that is spending millions of dollars to prevent change. On December 20, 2009, the Chicago Tribune released a report that detailed how the healthcare industry spent upwards of $635 million over the past two years to shape the healthcare bill. I hope you have time to read the entire report as it describes, in detail, the network of former members of congress and their aides who worked hard to shape this bill in favor of the industries that want to maintain a status quo, broken healthcare system.
This is why I say that it is the money that is the epicenter of the problem when it comes to pushing for the progressive issues that we all believe in. As an Assistant United States Attorney and independent Inspector General of Chicago, I learned to follow the evidence and follow the money. As a U.S. Senator, I intend to apply these same guiding principles to my work in Washington, and I will also raise the bar on myself by conducting business in an open and transparent manner.
Here are some things that I am already doing, as a candidate, to restore public trust in our political system.
In addition to my work on the Illinois Reform Commission, I have taken a pledge that I will reject all Political Action Committee (PAC) money and all money from lobbyists as a means of funding this campaign for U.S. Senate. Some of my opponents have limited themselves to taking some PAC money, but I have made it clear that I will reject all PAC and lobbyist money.
Although it is not in this clip of the endorsement from liberal icon, Judge Abner Mikva, during the endorsement, Mikva said, “nobody sent David Hoffman.” This is true and to restore public trust, we have to distance ourselves from the past culture of corruption in Illinois politics, and how we conduct the very operation of running a campaign.
Along the same lines of political reform, but not necessarily legislative in nature, I have pledged to post my Senate schedule online so voters know who I am meeting with and the topic of discussion. That way, anyone who may have different views on the same issue can schedule an appointment with my office. This is an added layer of transparency that can help rebuild public trust and I hope that many of my colleagues follow my lead.
I also intend to publish on-line, any earmark requests that I have submitted along with a written explanation for that earmark request. I know that we need to appropriate money to repair Illinois’ crumbling infrastructure, but I think it should be done in a very open and transparent manner.
Beyond my campaign and how I plan on running my Senate office, we need to talk about what can be done legislatively. The Illinois Reform Commission looked at several states like Arizona, Maine and Connecticut that have passed meaningful campaign finance rules. I believe that the U.S. House and Senate need to adopt some of these more aggressive measures and move towards publicly financed campaigns. .
In addition to publicly funded political campaigns, I will be a champion for other political reforms in the senate. Perhaps most significant to this community is my belief that every piece of legislation should be posted, in its final form, on-line and made available to the general public for a 48-hour period before any votes are cast in the house or senate. I trust that many of the readers and bloggers here at DailyKos would then play a significant role in researching those bills and contacting their legislators before votes are cast. The internet is a powerful tool that can have a positive impact on the political process and this is one way that we can use technology to create greater transparency and engage the public.
I will remain open to other good ideas offered by the KOS community and other communities, who have a commitment to the fight for reform and the progressive change we need in this country.
Q: You mentioned Judge Mikva, which leads to something I have to ask about -- our shared alma mater, The University of Chicago Law School, which he attended and where he taught my Legislative Process class, and where you now teach a course on Public Corruption and the Law. As law schools go, it's a pretty conservative place. What attracted you to it, and how did it shape you?
Hoffman: It was and remains one of the top law schools in the country and I was excited about coming home to Illinois. I loved the academic rigor of the law school and found it to be a much more balanced place than its reputation suggested. Some of the country’s leading liberal-leaning professors were there and I was honored to be taught by all of them — David Currie, Elena Kagan, Larry Lessig, Geoff Stone, David Strauss, and Cass Sunstein, to name some. I was the head of the Law School Democrats and brought leading Democrats to the law school as speakers. I also became very involved in the Woodlawn community just to the law school’s south, forming a new community-service group called Neighbors, which still exists. By the end of my second year, 100 law students were going to Woodlawn once a week to volunteer in tutoring programs, and at the Head Start program, at the YWCA, at the children’s hospital, among others.
Q: What do you consider to be a signature accomplishment you can point to that'll tell voters something about how you handle difficult situations?
Hoffman: Transforming the Chicago Inspector General’s Office into a truly independent and effective anti-corruption office, which required standing up to a powerful City Hall that did not appreciate independence.
Q: Other than your possible future colleague Dick Durbin, what Senators do you most admire and hope to work with in DC?
Hoffman: They would include Senators Russ Feingold and Jim Webb.