By Ashley Badgley and Bill McMorris  Illinois Statehouse News

CHICAGO — Local governments have sent millions of taxpayer dollars to lobbying firms to peddle influence in Springfield.

The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a good government group that produced a report tallying the money spent on lobbying efforts, believes the public is ill-informed about the relationship between government entities and lobbying firms.

“There’s a void in what we know about the state capitol and we should call on legislators to fill that void, to make this information public,” said David Morrison, associate director of the advocacy group.

Although the biggest spender in the study was the Chicago Transit Authority at $385,000 on six lobbying firms, some of the largest spenders came from the smallest areas.

Three Chicago suburbs managed to outspend the city of three million residents. The Village of Bellwood, population 20,500, sent more than $138,000 to four separate lobbying firms; Crestwood spent more than 10 times its 11,000 person population; and Countryside’s 5,000 residents paid lobbyists $90,000.

Chicago, meanwhile, spent $84,000 lobbying state government.

The spending stretched beyond Illinois’ population center.

McLean County, for example, spends $7,500 a year on lobbyists with Anderson Legislative Consulting, but also contributes $4,000 to a lobbying fund for the Metro Counties of Illinois Association.

McLean County Administrator Terry Lindberg said the majority of county lobbying efforts is focused on ensuring reimbursements at a time when the state government is amassing a slew of unpaid bills. Anderson representatives also push legislators to support laws that would benefit the county.

Lindberg said lobbying is needed to ensure Illinois’ smallest towns are represented in Springfield.

Morrison said the practice is not uncommon. Smaller government bodies like school districts can be spread across legislative districts. Their voice may be lost amid these boundaries. Lobbyists and associations can increase their presence in Springfield.

Lindberg defended taxpayer-funded lobbying.

“Everyone makes it sound like it’s dirty, but it’s not,” he said.

Morrison can agree on that point, at least partially. A self-described lobbyist, the associate director said the study does not indicate any wrongdoing — it’s only meant to give the public some insight into the inner workings of government.

He thinks the public would not be as suspicious of lobbyists if there were more transparency in the process. He said public and private lobbyists should disclose what measures they are backing, along with the money allocated to providing such services.

Lindberg said the county provides ample oversight to lobbyist spending because those funds mean that much more to his smaller revenue pool.

“We’ve carefully reviewed [lobbyist] expenditures we make and we feel they are well worth it,” he said.

But even oversight can’t stop the inevitable insider deals from taking place in Springfield. Many lobbyists for local governments and in the private sector are former government officials. There are no rules in place to prevent legislators or their aides from becoming lobbyists soon after the end of their legislative careers—a regulation that became federal law several years ago.

“Legislators who were defeated in a primary or lose an election…show up in Springfield at the end of session and the very next day they’re back registered as lobbyists,” Morrison said. “It’s in some ways even worse with staff members who in the middle of session give notice and quit on a Wednesday and come back on Thursday as a lobbyist.”

The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform spent more than eight months compiling the data from public records requests.