A Conversation with Our Readers                                                                        

Really, who are the top lobbyists?

Readers:

Lobbyists have something in common with journalists: Both have that strange combination of being stereotypically disdained but universally needed. The media don't fare well in many public opinion polls, and lobbyists often take the blame in general conversations about what's wrong with government today. They represent "special interests" — which, according to the complaint, means they represent the special interests the critics don't happen to agree with.

But people familiar with the day-to-day work of government understand that lobbyists are essential to keeping public officials up to date with the latest information or research about many aspects of our society.

So for our cover story this month (see page 10), Donald Sevener explores those who are considered the top lobbyists in Springfield, and why. Often, Sevener found, former legislators or other former high-ranking officials become the most influential lobbyists. These people know how to get access to decision-makers. The philosophical question that observers of government ask, though, is this: Are they too influential?

When it comes to influence, labor unions have played a major role in politics throughout this century. But they face a critical turning point, as David Moberg explains in an essay that begins on page 20. Several current labor situations now unfolding, notably in Decatur, exemplify how times are different for the unions. And Moberg points out that some unions are employing new strategies as they strive to maintain their influence.

Let's not forget that last fall nearly every candidate for every office promised to fight crime in Illinois. We add to the discussion in this issue by giving two people a chance to expand the debate. Rep. Al Salvi says in a candid Q&A Interview that it's time to privatize the prison system in Illinois (see page 24) — which means that construction and operations would become a private profit-making venture. Then, guest columnist David Protess explains why Death Row resident Girvies Davis should not be executed (see page 29).

Finally, we hope with this issue to open the discussion about Illinois' horse breeding policies. The article on page 16 quotes a number of people who say that current practices put Illinois horses in the minor leagues when it comes to competitive horse racing nationwide. But thousands of jobs and millions of dollars are at stake — factors that automatically complicate the debate.

Many readers back public broadcasting funding Our Question of the Month in March dealt with the controversial topic of federal funding for public broadcasting. We asked: "Do you believe it is appropriate for federal funds to be spent in support of public broadcasting?" And you responded: Yes: 104       No: 37 These responses arrived at a time when some in Congress were making a lot of noise about cutting support for public broadcasting. But listen to what our readers had to say: • From Champaign: "Free public schools and libraries were established because an informed citizenry is essential for a successful democracy. Today most people get most of their information from broadcast media. This makes the high quality of public broadcasting more important." • From Peoria: "Not everyone has access to cable or can afford a satellite dish. PBS is an excellent alternative for those of us with 'poor man's TV.'" • From Springfield: "There are few commercial TV programs appropriate for preschoolers, but public TV has numerous smash hits for them: Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, and Barney. My daughter has benefited from these programs." • From Oak Lawn: "National Public Radio and WBEZ do a phenomenal job in reporting the news!" • Also from Peoria: "The only news I listen to is 'Morning Edition' and 'All Things Considered.' On public radio there is great music and programs — no nasty talking." This Question of the Month is, of course, not a scientific poll but rather a way for us to be in dialogue with our readers. It's a way to let you know what your co-readers are thinking — sort of an expansion of the traditional forum of letters to the editor. Many of those opposed to funding for public broadcasting said that market forces and not government subsidies should determine whether public broadcasting's programming should be available. Several also pointed out that the type of programs available to the public has expanded greatly with the arrival of cable TV. And an Oquawka man explained that quality programs "could easily find private sector sponsors. Several others, with what I find to be a liberal or leftist bent, express points of view, which not unlike those of a conservative or rightist bent, should be funded by those of that persuasion, not the public, and therefore, not me!" "You want your kid to learn to count?" wrote another reader. "Try teaching him yourself." Ed Wojcicki