The Chicago Board of Ethics on Wednesday found there is probable cause that eight more individuals and the companies they represented broke the city’s lobbying laws for actions revealed in Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s personal emails — a substantial expansion of the number of potential lobbying violations now under review.
The sharp increase in cases follows a Chicago Tribune report last month that found Emanuel’s personal email accounts have served as a private avenue of influence for lobbyists, corporate executives and campaign donors who sought action from — or access to — the mayor. The Tribune found 26 possible instances where individuals contacted the mayor or city officials but did not register as a lobbyist or report that contact to the ethics board.
The panel’s Wednesday votes mean the agency will send letters to eight individuals and their companies notifying them that they likely violated the city’s ethics laws. They’ll have 10 business days to respond, then the ethics panel will meet behind closed doors and make a final determination. Ethics board chairman William F. Conlon called the potential fine amounts "very significant."
Emails to Emanuel raise questions about dozens of possible lobbying violations Bill Ruthhart and Hal Dardick
Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s personal email accounts have served as a private avenue of influence where executives and investors sought favorable action from City Hall, raising questions about whether some of the messages crossed the line into lobbying and violated the city’s ethics law, the Chicago Tribune…
Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s personal email accounts have served as a private avenue of influence where executives and investors sought favorable action from City Hall, raising questions about whether some of the messages crossed the line into lobbying and violated the city’s ethics law, the Chicago Tribune…
(Bill Ruthhart and Hal Dardick)
With the addition of these new cases, the ethics board has found probable cause that 13 individuals and the companies they represented violated the lobbying law. Five individuals previously received similar letters and have responded, but the board has not issued rulings in those cases, officials said. The board also issued a record $90,000 fine in a 14th case in February. The ethics panel also said Wednesday it reviewed 10 other cases of potential illegal lobbying, but found there was not enough probable cause to pursue them.
The ethics board’s rules require it to keep secret the identity of the individuals it considers for ethics violations until the panel reaches a final determination. Conlon declined to give a timeline for when the current batch of cases might be resolved and did not say whether the panel might consider additional possible lobbying violations found in the mayor’s emails.
Conlon did, however, start Wednesday’s meeting by referencing the Tribune’s stories on the mayor’s emails, saying that public reporting had played a key role in the board voting in favor of pursuing the additional eight cases. He also thanked those responsible for the information becoming public. Emanuel only released the 2,696 pages of emails in late December after facing open records lawsuits from the Better Government Association and Tribune.
Full text of emails to Mayor Rahm Emanuel that raise questions about possible lobbying violations View/search document collection View/search document collectionRead the story
"We thought we ought to pause and thank those who actively found information upon which we’ve made many of our decisions, made that information public, brought to light that information, and it has been enormously helpful to us in carrying out our mission," Conlon said. "And for that we are grateful."
The emails the Tribune found that raised questions about possible ethics violations involved scores of pitches to Emanuel from business owners, representatives from Airbnb advocating against home-sharing regulations, American Airlines executives pushing the mayor to back a merger, Chicago Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts seeking security around Wrigley Field and a representative for United Airlines negotiating the expansion and modernization of O’Hare International Airport.
Following the Tribune report, Conlon said, the panel determined to review the cases raised by the newspaper. Wednesday’s meeting reflected that the board had followed through, as the panel more than doubled the number of cases it previously had on its docket to 24.
The ethics board is in relatively uncharted territory. It long has been viewed as toothless because aldermen did not give the agency investigative powers when it was created. The release of Emanuel’s personal emails has provided the panel with details of lobbying activity it hasn’t had the wherewithal to uncover itself.
William Conlon Terrence Antonio James / Chicago Tribune
Chicago Board of Ethics Chairman William Conlon presides over a meeting of the group in Chicago on Wednesday, April 19, 2017.
Chicago Board of Ethics Chairman William Conlon presides over a meeting of the group in Chicago on Wednesday, April 19, 2017.
(Terrence Antonio James / Chicago Tribune)
Even so, Conlon said that the board’s lack of power hampered it in some of the cases it had to vote down, acknowledging the ethics panel can’t even submit an open records request to a city agency if it’s related to one of the cases it’s evaluating.
"There were some cases where we did not have sufficient information, and because of the limitation on our investigatory power, we couldn’t go and get it if it existed," said Conlon, senior counsel with the law firm Sidley Austin and a former assistant U.S. attorney Emanuel appointed last fall to chair the ethics board.
In some cases that were rejected, Conlon said, the board did not find a lobbying violation because the activity involved a nonprofit or religious organization not subject to the lobbying law. The Tribune did not include any such cases in its report.
The board is responsible for enforcing the city’s ethics law, a sweeping measure that defines a lobbyist as someone who "undertakes to influence any legislative or administrative action" by city officials, employees and the City Council or its committees.
Under the law, a person does not have to be paid by a company or party to be considered a lobbyist — they just have to try to influence city officials on behalf of another individual or entity. Lobbyists are required to register with the city, take a training course and file reports every three months detailing their activities, including whom they lobbied, for whom they lobbied, and any political donations or gifts to city officials.
Business pitches to Emanuel raise prospect of potential lobbying violations Hal Dardick and Bill Ruthhart
Found within the thousands of emails Mayor Rahm Emanuel released from his personal accounts are plenty of pitches from people looking to do business with City Hall.
If the Chicago Board of Ethics were to conclude that type of contact is lobbying and those individuals did not register with the city,…
Found within the thousands of emails Mayor Rahm Emanuel released from his personal accounts are plenty of pitches from people looking to do business with City Hall.
If the Chicago Board of Ethics were to conclude that type of contact is lobbying and those individuals did not register with the city,…
(Hal Dardick and Bill Ruthhart)
If someone seeks to influence City Hall and does not register or report their activities, they are subject to fines. Lobbyists who register but fail to report lobbying activity are subject to fines of up to $2,000 for each contact they don’t report. Companies that hire lobbyists who fail to register are subject to one-time fines of up to $2,000.
The largest fine is $1,000 a day for lobbyists who fail to register within five days of contacting city officials. That’s designed to create immediate transparency as to which interests are seeking to influence potential government actions as city officials weigh those decisions.
In February, the board voted to fine former Uber executive David Plouffe $90,000 for illegally lobbying Emanuel on the city’s ride sharing ordinance. Plouffe, who managed former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, sent an email to one of the mayor’s personal accounts asking Emanuel to help the company on regulations for picking up travelers at the city’s airports.
Plouffe and Uber argued the amount of the record $90,000 fine he received was "absurd," but the ethics board stood by the notice it sent Plouffe. The penalty was based on the $1,000-per-day fine in the lobbying law, and Uber was fined $2,000 for a single instance of employing a lobbyist who failed to register. Conlon confirmed Wednesday that Uber recently wrote checks to cover both fines.
Even heavier fines could be on the way.
In Emanuel emails, some lobbyists registered but didn’t report contacting mayor Bill Ruthhart and Hal Dardick
Most of the instances that raise questions about potential lobbying violations found in the thousands of pages of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s personal emails center on individuals attempting to influence City Hall and then failing to register as a lobbyist.
In three cases, however, lobbyists who were…
Most of the instances that raise questions about potential lobbying violations found in the thousands of pages of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s personal emails center on individuals attempting to influence City Hall and then failing to register as a lobbyist.
In three cases, however, lobbyists who were…
(Bill Ruthhart and Hal Dardick)
The 26 potential lobbying violations the Tribune found in Emanuel’s emails could carry fines in excess of $14 million based on how much time has passed and the $1,000-a-day tab. The city’s lobbying law does not take into account the nature or the frequency of the lobbying, just whether the registration happened. Many of the potential violators the Tribune found in Emanuel’s emails contacted the mayor more than a year or two ago.
Conlon said the amount of potential fines did not factor into any of the cases the board rejected Wednesday. He declined to say how much in potential fines those who have or will be contacted by the board will face.
"The fine amounts are significant," Conlon said. "I mean very significant."
The board chairman also sent mixed signals on whether the panel would be willing to hand out multimillion dollar fines for violations dating back several years.
On one hand, Conlon said, the board needs to consider the circumstances and timeline of a violation, and he said the board will invite those who receive probable cause letters to come in and meet with staff and board members to explain themselves. And he indicated the board might not be willing to go back several years to issue a fine, giving the hypothetical example of a pizza parlor owner who might not have known better about contacting their alderman.
Asked if ignorance to the law was a plausible defense, Conlon responded, "Not ignorance, but innocence — sure. We’re going to sit and talk and try to understand."
On the other hand, Conlon emphasized that corporate executives with access to high-powered attorneys wouldn’t be let off the hook for not understanding or not being aware of the law. He also indicated that the law offered no flexibility on the $1,000-per-day fine requirement, and said that’s appropriate to deter illegal lobbying.
"We still have the mandate of the ordinance that says $1,000 a day, and this isn’t the only statute that says it. There are similar environmental statutes at the federal level that have been upheld," Conlon said. "You can say it’s severe, but people ought to register. That’s the reality. People register and file reports so that the public can understand who’s having contact with government officials. They ought to face up to that. The more sunshine, the better off."
bruthhart@chicagotribune.com
Twitter @BillRuthhart
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
