The Judiciary Committee has postponed a high-profile meeting Wednesday after a last-minute maneuver by a top committee Democrat threatened to sink a months-long effort to revise and reauthorize surveillance authorities due to expire next month.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) had been prepared Wednesday to offer five amendments that would reform the Watergate-era law, known as FISA, that senior House Democrats see as "poison pills" that would doom the bill in the House. Her push rankled top Democrats, who said her proposals would upend months of delicate negotiations that resulted in a bill backed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif).

The staffs of both committees had also consulted extensively with intelligence community officials and outside civil liberties advocates like the ACLU to forge a delicate compromise. The measure was expected to pass the committee Wednesday, setting up a House floor vote to reauthorize the program before it expires on March 15. That timeline is now in jeopardy as Democrats are forced to confront an unexpected division in their ranks.

There had been staff level discussions between Lofgren's staff and the committees negotiating the bill, who believed until Tuesday that there would be no amendment effort.

"The committee and Chairman Nadler have been working very carefully in intense negotiation for months with all the interest groups and had worked out a very carefully negotiated reform bill of FISA," one senior Democratic aide said, noting that the alliance between Nadler and Schiff had been the product of talks that occurred in earnest even as both committees were deeply involved in the impeachment process.

But before the meeting was postponed, Lofgren rejected the notion that her amendments jeopardized the measure's chances of passing the House.

"I reject that categorization of what we’re doing here," Lofgren said in a phone interview. "We’re making policy. This isn’t some game where side deals that are done in secret without the concurrence of the committees of jurisdiction is somehow binding on the members of the committee."

The FISA law includes provisions relied on by the FBI and NSA to aid terrorism investigations. Three of those provisions are due to expire on March 15. But the complexity of the law, its implications for civil liberties and recent questions about the FBI's handling of the FISA process raised in a watchdog report, have complicated effort to renew them.

President Donald Trump, in particular, is viewed as a wildcard in the debate. He has railed against his own intelligence officials for what he contends was an illegal FISA spying operation on his 2016 campaign. An inspector general's report in December described significant failures by the FBI in obtaining a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page in late 2016, weeks after he departed the Trump campaign as a foreign policy adviser. Trump's allies in Congress have hammered the FBI and intelligence officials for those failures and suggested there should be major changes to the law to prevent abuses.

Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday spoke privately to Senate Republicans about reauthorizing FISA, telling them that the Trump administration could support extending it. Barr said he would make administrative changes to the law to mollify the president.

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the top Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, accused Democrats of “putting our national security at risk with their stall tactics.”

Lofgren noted the amendments are pulled from her own bipartisan FISA reform bill that she has long championed and vocally supported.

"If we don’t take this opportunity to reform the FISA process we are missing an opportunity," Lofgren said. "There is bipartisan interest on the House side in reform and we ought to take advantage of that circumstance."

Lofgren said she hadn't spoken to Speaker Nancy Pelosi about her amendments, noting that Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee markup of the bill would be the "beginning of the process." She described her proposals as "modest" changes that shouldn't jeopardize the underlying legislation.

"This goes back decades," Lofgren said, pointing to the passage of the 2001 PATRIOT Act. "Many times we’ve had the chairmen, either Republican or Democratic chairmen, saying, ‘we have to hold off, otherwise the [House Intelligence Committee] people blow this up.’ And as a consequence of that, 20 years in, we haven’t reformed it. I’m done with that."

Senior House Democrats say the negotiated version of the bill represents the best chance to make reforms to FISA without alienating any of the stakeholders on the issue. The alternative, they say, may be a push to renew the status quo.

"A straight reauthorization would represent a lost opportunity to strengthen protections for civil liberties and the privacy of Americans through these new reforms,” said a House Intelligence Committee staffer.

In a follow-up interview after the markup was postponed, Lofgren called the initial bill a "puny reform" and said she will "soon" offer a separate bill that would revive one piece of the FISA law set to expire next month. Lofgren also declined to say whether she would once again press for her amendments if the markup is rescheduled for next week.

"I’m willing to talk to anybody who’s got a reasonable plan," she said. "The bill as introduced by the committee was not one I thought was worth supporting. Now, I’d like to do real reform."

Heather Caygle contributed to this report.

Subscribe to Women Rule on Apple Podcasts here. | Subscribe via Spotify here.

There’s a popular caricature of a cable news host: an opinionated, 50-something white man prone to heated rhetoric, willing to play loose with the facts in service of a broader point, preaching to the choir from the comfort of his own hour-long show.

But that image is looks nothing like Harris Faulkner, hosts two hours of Fox News programming every weekday. For starters, she’s a hard-news journalist who cut her teeth as a local reporter, covering the Oklahoma City bombing. She's diligent about trying to fact-check her guests in real-time, often texting her producers live on-air. She’s been unblinking about rooting out the vestiges of the systemic harassment that was once endemic throughout much of the media. And she’s the only woman of color to solo-anchor a weekday show on any of the three major cable news channels. She may not be what you imagine when you think of cable news, but the future of cable news could look a lot like her.

In an interview with Anna Palmer for POLITICO’s Women Rule podcast, Faulkner spoke candidly about all of this and more. What follows is a transcript of their conversation, edited for length and readability. For more, listen to the interview on the newest episode of Women Rule.

Anna Palmer, POLITICO: There are three big cable news channels: Fox, obviously, CNN and MSNBC. And across those three, there’s only one woman of color who hosts her own weekday TV show: you. How significant do you think that is?

Harris Faulkner, Fox News: Well, at the time, it felt big because I was the first in primetime, and I had done that for six years with “Fox Report” on the weekends at 7:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday nights. And so to segue to weekdays and to have a single presence in that seat felt particularly significant to me as a journalist.

But personally, it was important because my girls were going to get to see mom, and they were going to get to see her do something that was maybe not “record-breaking” — because I’m not the first — but “groundbreaking.” And certainly, that has lasted, as no other news network on cable has met us where we are with that: a female in a solo chair as an African American woman. So it’s been a big deal to me and then for the wider industry, it’s a wake-up call and a reminder of what people need to do if they want to keep up with Fox.

Palmer: You have such a prominent position where all eyes are on you, and I’m wondering if you ever feel this additional pressure as the only woman of color?

Faulkner: I don’t think about it in moment-to-moment. I’m not thinking about covering that White House story or covering that protest, wherever it may be, or a plant closing or whatever the news is, from the perspective of a black woman at all times. That would be odd. I don’t shop that way. [Laughs] Like, “Oh, these shoes are lovely. But as a black woman, I don’t think I should wear them.”

But there are certain things where the topic comes up. I think from the perspective of covering stories where being a minority is part of the story, it matters. When a black church is hit in South Carolina by someone with hate in their spirit, that’s something that touches all of America, but as a person of color, I see that story even through a deeper prism of, “Gosh, that takes us back to a time when black churches were targets in this country.”

I always harken back to something my dad said. He was a war pilot twice in Vietnam. He had a choice of how he would feel about America. He said, “We didn’t have it perfect in the ’60s and early ’70s, but what we have that no other nation on earth has is the kind of potential that feels anointed; that feels meant for us.” And he loves America; loved it then, and would have fought no matter what — even at a time when there were signs up that relegated him to a different water fountain or a different bathroom. So I was raised with that spirit, and I totally believe that our potential outweighs and goes beyond anything in race and diversity that we could ever fight about or disagree about. So I approach the news with that hopefulness.

Palmer: [As he served in the military,] there were often times when your father was not physically able to be with you.

Faulkner: A lot, growing up.

Palmer: And I read that he would record messages for you?

Faulkner: Yeah, he would make — well, I don’t even know if the young kids know what a cassette tape is. It’s about the size of a good slice of cinnamon bread, and you stick that into the old cassette player. And they had these things all over the planet at the time, and dad had them in the field, at war. And every now and then — it would take a month to get things from that part of the world when he was fighting, but he did “The 12 Days of Christmas.”

He would talk to me. I was a little one, just a toddler, and he didn’t want me to forget that storytelling is so important to us. That sounds so cliché now that I’m a journalist. I shouldn’t even say that out loud anymore because it’s just like—

Palmer: No, it’s very sweet.

Faulkner: But it’s true. I do what I do because I come from a guy who literally sounds like he could be a broadcaster. He made Walter Cronkite just sound wimpy. That voice was amazing, and the way he would tell, “‘Twas the Night Before Christmas.” It would have you hanging — “So what happens?” — like you didn’t know. My mom would play these over and over.

The first time he came home from a lengthy deployment, I think I was two. And my mom said that when he would speak, I would just freeze. That voice — that’s the only way I really knew him. We didn’t have cell phones, so it’s not like he could send us a selfie. Can you imagine that?

Palmer: You talk a lot about the lessons you took from his example. I’m curious about your mom. Can you tell us about her influence on you?

Faulkner: I love that question. Mom is never forgotten. In many instances, that’s where the discipline came from because when you’re not home as much at a young age, you don’t want to have that.

Palmer: And it’s easier to be — you want to be the fun guy.

Faulkner: You want to be all unicorns and rainbows. And my mother was in the kitchen going, “I’m going to chase that unicorn down.” [Laughs] But, yeah, my mother taught me sensibility and to balance what you have going on in your life at all times with what’s expected of you.

As I got older, my mother taught me to remember that your connection with people is based on what you’re allowing them to touch about you, which was the opposite of what you get as a military kid, because dad’s in a uniform. He’s official; you don’t poke that. But with mom, you do: Always question authority. And now, my job is to talk to generals. How cool is that?

Palmer: Now you get to question them.

Faulkner: My mom said, “The facts matter. And right now, your dad is off fighting on behalf of a country that believes in getting it right.” It’s part of what kind of frustrates me right now with where we are in social media and “fake news” and all of that: I find I am hungrier than ever to just get to the truth, and I run out of patience sometimes when I think I’m not getting it.

I have a certain perspective and intolerance for people who try to twist and bend whatever the truth might be. So I feel like I’m right for this moment, because I have the patience to listen, but I’m hungry enough to just keep asking the questions.

Palmer: One of the things I think a lot about is the public persona versus the private persona. You are an on-air personality. You’re doing events. But is the on-air persona different than when you’re at home with your girls or —

Faulkner: No.

Palmer: — is it kind of all the same?

Faulkner: It’s all the same. I’ve been on TV for a quarter-century — most of my adult life. And I learned early on in my career that it doesn’t serve me well to try to be Ron Burgundy. Because you slip — and I tend to slip when I see someplace that I’ve [worked] have a disaster.

The Oklahoma City bombing was really the first place that I saw death up close. One grandmother, I’ll never forget it: She lost her grandkids in the daycare that was on the first floor of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. And she said she had fights with God over that. I think it’s impossible to be up close with people and to ask them to let you in if you’re fake. I tried very early on just to be real.

Palmer: You mentioned fake news and vitriol of the environment that we are in.

Faulkner: Yeah.

Palmer: It’s certainly unlike anything that I’ve experienced in 15-plus years of doing this kind of journalism. On TV, though, it’s different, where you almost have to real-time fact-check people at times.

Faulkner: Yeah.

Palmer: How do you handle that responsibility?

Faulkner: People have lied since the dawn of [time]. What complicates it now is people think they know things from what they see in social media. People will come on and say all sorts of things that they think they know: “Well, I saw up on Twitter…”

Sometimes, you have to see what they think they know and debunk it before you can go on. I have a team that’s in the control room and they’re listening and watching. Live on the air, sometimes you’ll see me texting, and I’m actually asking people questions, like especially on “Outnumbered,” the talk show. You’ll say, “What is she doing?” And I’m able to multitask. In those moments, especially on unscripted shows, you can give a little leeway for making mistakes, but you can’t make them every two seconds because you let somebody off the hook.

The other thing that I think has come into play that we never had before was this mean-spiritedness. Just tell the truth and be civil, and sometimes you win in those instances where you can’t like, “What did that person just say? I’m not quite sure if I heard it.” That happens a lot, too, because you’ve got an earpiece in —

Palmer: Sure, you’ve got a lot of things happening.

Faulkner: — and you didn’t quite catch it, or whatever. But sometimes what can help you out is, “I didn’t catch every word of that. This sounded not right to me.” I had to do that recently with somebody who had spit out the name of the whistleblower in the impeachment process, and at the same time, taken down anybody who might be nonbinary: “Okay, I’m going to just pick the one I think I heard because I didn’t hear the other one clearly.” Yeah, we’re not going to play the, “Be mean based on pronoun game here.” So you call it when you can see it and when you can hear it. You’re not going to catch everything, but I think you are helped in the audience’s eyes by trying.

Palmer: Throughout the media, there’s been a reckoning on the “Me Too” movement over the last several years. Almost all networks, lots of newspapers, lots of Hollywood has obviously been hit by it. When the news of Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly first hit — I know you’ve talked a lot about this and I don’t want to belabor it, but what was your reaction? How did you handle it?

Faulkner: Well, those two instances were time apart. The news broke with Roger Ailes first. By the time the news broke with Bill O’Reilly, it had progressed to the point where women in the building were talking about it daily. I mean, it was the topic. And the topic was: “People are focused on us at Fox News; is this really the only place it’s ever happened? Are we broken? Did women stay silent for so long that, in some way, it’s our fault?”

We had difficult conversations as a team of women, and we would have them in the bathroom. We would have them in our office. We would have them in the hallway. And then things started to come apart in other places. When I started seeing it unravel on Capitol Hill, and women coming forward, I said, “This is big.”

We have a role in history. And I know that it’s not one that any one of us would ever choose, but I made a determination as things were kind of unfolding that, yes, this was leadership in our building: Roger Ailes, the most powerful man in news. But what he did was wrong. And it happened, first. But it had been happening, and when you look at the calendar of how long these women at other networks and in Hollywood — I mean, Harvey Weinstein, I don’t even have a word as that plays out.

Now, fast forward, I struggle with how we take this into the next generation of protecting our daughters and our female co-workers who are young and coming up, and those next conversations about #MeToo; talking about believing one another, and investigating, and making sure that the facts come out, and holding people accountable, and firing people who deserve it, and can we go deeper than that: Were laws broken?

As we do all of that, can we simultaneously make sure that women don’t become a secondary target again? Like, “Well, I guess we just better not hire women because they can be trouble.” And then corporately, what’s it like when a woman is hired? Do you see her as competition? This is where I think it is an advantage to be a person of color, because we have to look at it as the more opportunity there is for everybody, the better it is all around. There just simply have to be more seats to put us in them.

Palmer: Has the culture changed here? Have you seen it in terms of kind of out of this movement that now — I know you’re involved in some of that yourself here at Fox?

Faulkner: You’re talking about inclusion and diversity?

Palmer: Yes.

Faulkner: So here at Fox, it’s changing constantly. It’s a journey. Am I going to tell you that we flipped on the lights on a Tuesday and, “Oh, my gosh, #MeToo solved”? It doesn’t work like that. And you hope that it doesn’t work like that, because that doesn’t leave room for people to still come forth. People share their stories at different times. We’re talking about sexual discrimination; not everybody wants to have that conversation openly. But the story is benefitted by every voice. And so I think we are definitely going in the right direction, and I’m thrilled that leadership here at Fox are open to having conversations and not treating this like, “We put it in a box, we closed it. We’re ready to move on.” The inclusion part of our journey here is neverending.

Palmer: In the next year, we’re going to be [covering a presidential race]. Things are going to get more interesting and crazy before everything is settled. What should we be watching from your show, from you, what are you hoping the next year brings?

Faulkner: Okay, you’re going to find this hard to believe: I’m going to be silent. I want to hear from the voters. I just want to hear what’s important to them. I like a poll. It can be interesting. I think people sometimes don’t tell the truth in polling. [LAUGHS] We certainly know that because when people were asked, “Are you going to vote for Donald Trump?” A heck a lot of them did, and they said they didn’t, or didn’t say anything at all.

So I want to hear what’s important. I want to know why President Trump and Bernie Sanders resonate with their bases. Those [two] are completely oppositional, but they kind of have the same energy when you go to their rallies, it’s this, “We love this candidate, and blah, blah, blah, blah,” a love and an energy that you don’t see with every candidate out there.

To hear more from Harris Faulkner, listen to the full podcast here. Women Rule takes listeners backstage with female bosses for real talk on how they made it and what advice they have for women looking to lead.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - U.S. AttorneyGeneral William Barr will be a featured speaker Wednesday at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Tennessee. U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Jay Sekulow, one of the attorneys who defended President Donald Trump during his impeachment trial, are also on the schedule.

Barr's afternoon ...

The Democratic candidates seemed torn between attacking the Vermont senator and attacking each other. That benefited Sanders once againWho is the happy warrior?Apparently not a single one of the seven Democratic candidates locked in a doom-laden downward spiral in the final debate before Super Tuesday.The last Democrat to win the presidency printed posters with HOPE slapped all over them. Judging from Tuesday’s debate in South Carolina, most of the party’s leading voices are either breathless or hopeless.Yes, the stakes are high, after three years of the presidential dumpster fire called Donald Trump. But the stakes sound even higher if your presidential campaign is also on fire, as it seemed to be for just about everyone on stage.CBS News, the host of the verbal calamity that was Tuesday’s debate, helpfully placed the two least appealing candidates on the outer edges of the stage.It was a very finely balanced contest between billionaire Mike Bloomberg and billionaire Tom Steyer as to who could win the title of the most bizarre combination of arrogance and incompetence.In this live human experiment where we all watch wealthy old men burn their money in TV ads and political consultants, Bloomberg and Steyer could barely cough up their pre-digested punchlines.Bloomberg came out hot for Bernie, turning a question about his favorite subject – the economy – into a convoluted attack about Russian support. It was typical of a candidate who is most often described as data-driven because he is so clearly not human-driven.“Vladimir Putin thinks that Donald Trump should be president of the United States, and that’s why Russia is helping you get elected, so you will lose to him,” said the former New York mayor.“Oh, Mr Bloomberg,” said Sanders. Oh Mr Bloomberg. Somehow his consultants didn’t predict that Sanders would look into the camera, accuse the billionaire of cozying up to China’s dictator, and tell Putin to go away.In contrast it often seemed like Tom Steyer walked on stage without speaking to a single consultant who could tell him the truth about his clunky concoction of a campaign.Steyer has no conceivable rationale for running since his call for impeaching Trump was overtaken by, well, impeachment. So he began by agreeing with the Democratic frontrunner before making a plea to save the private sector.“Bernie Sanders’ analysis is right. The difference is, I don’t like his solutions,” Steyer said. “I don’t believe that a government takeover of large parts of the economy makes any sense for working people or for families. I think what we need to do is to present an alternative that includes a vibrant, competitive private sector.”Thank goodness there are courageous billionaires like Steyer who speak up for the private sector. If only he didn’t look perpetually terrified by the prospect of remembering his own talking points.> Tuesday’s debate was the last best chance for the Sanders-chasers to catch his tail, but they seemed torn between attacking the Vermont senator and attacking each otherTuesday’s debate was the last best chance for the Sanders-chasers to catch his tail, but they seemed torn between attacking the Vermont senator and attacking each other. It’s hard to stay focused when you’re fighting for your political life.Joe Biden was standing next to Bernie Sanders in the center of the debate stage and the two old men did their best to sound like they were fighting over the last free seat on the subway.“You know, when we talk about progressive, let’s talk about being progressive,” Biden began, before freestyling with English grammar to create a mosaic of half-thoughts, swipes and slights.“Being progressive, he thought Barack Obama – he wanted a primary – he said we should primary Barack Obama, someone should, and, in fact, the president was weak and our administration was in fact not up to it. Look, folks, this is – let’s talk about progressive. Progressive is getting things done, and that’s what we got done. We got a lot done.”The only debaters who got anything done on stage on Tuesday were Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. But they both struggled to make the case for their own campaigns as well as they destroyed the case for their rivals.Warren said she agreed with Sanders “on a lot of things” but would just do a better job because she worked harder than he did. “Getting a progressive agenda enacted is going to be really hard,” she said, “and it’s going to take someone who digs into the details to make it happen.”It’s not exactly a killer argument at this late stage of the primaries, but Warren is clearly capable of crafting one of those. Once she turned to Bloomberg, Warren displayed the kind of search-and-destroy debating skills that turns businessmen into Big Gulps.After pointing out all of his donations to Trump allies in Congress, including South Carolina’s own Lindsey Graham, Warren said, “I don’t care how much money Mayor Bloomberg has. The core of the Democratic party will never trust him. He has not earned their trust. I will. And the fact that he cannot earn the trust of core of the Democratic party means he is the riskiest candidate standing on this stage.”There was a time, briefly, when the moderates – Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg – ganged up on the massive spending plans that Sanders has placed at the heart of his campaign. “A bunch of broken promises that sound good on bumper stickers,” said Klobuchar.But that was after she talked about working with Sanders to bring down drug prices and promoted her own “more affordable, non-profit public option”. Given the choice between Sanders and Sanders-lite, Democratic voters might just go for the option that fits on a bumper sticker.Mayor Pete made a solid, regular case for just about every solid, regular subject. If this were a contest in sounding reasonable, then Buttigieg would run away with the contest. But the metronomic mayor regulates his beat a little too precisely to have a true pulse.“If you think the last four years has been chaotic, divisive, toxic, exhausting, imagine spending the better part of 2020 with Bernie Sanders v Donald Trump. Folks at home, from South Carolina to South Bend, are trying to figure out what any of this means for us,” he explained with a turn of phrase that was delivered just like it was written for him. All folksy and southy.Yes, he admitted, there was a progressive majority. “But, also, there’s a majority of the American people who I think right now just want to be able to turn on the TV, see their president, and actually feel their blood pressure go down a little bit, instead of up through the roof.”It takes a peculiar love of reason to think you can campaign against passion by pushing for lower blood pressure. Don’t get too excited now.As Bernie Sanders glided past the punches and counterpunches, Joe Biden stood center stage lamenting the state of the debate.“I guess the only way you do this is jump in and speak twice as long as you should,” said the former vice-president, sounding like he was just about getting a hang of this debate thing on the teevee.“Why am I stopping?” he asked mid-sentence, a little later, as his time ran out. “Nobody else stops.”How true. Nobody in this race is stopping even though Sanders has already passed them by.At least Bernie knows why he’s running. Most of the rest of them are like Joe Biden: they just think it’s their turn to talk. * Richard Wolffe is a Guardian US columnist

Nobody in Illinois politics wants Rod Blagojevich around.Blagojevich has been shunned by fellow Democrats such as the current governor, J. B. Pritzker, who called President Donald Trump's decision to commute his sentence an “abuse” of the pardon power. And the reception from Republicans has been no warmer: Illinois House minority leader Jim Durkin called Trump's decision “disappointing,” echoing the sentiments of the many state Republicans who had previously pleaded with the president not to release the former governor early.Sitting lawmakers, including Pritzker, want to wash their hands of the former governor, and that’s understandable from a political perspective. It's easy to point the finger at Blago, as if he were the real problem. But in truth he’s just one name in a long, seemingly endless line of figures associated with public corruption in Illinois. The problem is a system that's set up to be gamed by those who seek elected office to better themselves, rather than Illinoisans.Now more than ever, the Land of Lincoln needs to get serious about foundational ethics reforms to end its culture of corruption.In the past year alone, more than 30 Illinois lawmakers, businesses, and political figures were questioned, investigated, indicted, or convicted on federal corruption charges. All that corruption comes at a big price: Economic and policy experts at the Illinois Policy Institute (IPI), where I serve as an editor, have estimated that it costs the state $550 million a year in lost economic opportunities. Harder to calculate is the cost to the state’s dignity and our collective good as a long line of corruption scandals has tarnished its name: * Four of the most recent eleven governors have gone to prison, and Pritzker is currently facing a federal probe over allegations that he removed toilets from a Chicago mansion in a scheme to save $331,000 in property taxes. * 30 Chicago aldermen have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of corruption since 1972. * Federal prosecutors logged 1,731 public corruption convictions between 1976 and 2017 in the Northern District of Illinois, the district that includes Chicago. * Illinois has seen 891 corruption convictions since 2000, or nearly one per week, making it the most corrupt state in the nation during that time.Just within the past year, federal corruption probes have nabbed two Chicago aldermen, two state senators, and a state representative, resulting in one conviction and one guilty plea thus far. There are about 30 politicians and lobbyists whose names have surfaced as part of the continuing federal investigation into a tangle of former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists, sitting public officials accused of doing lobbying work, and leaders, ranging from local townships up to the statehouse, trading favors and influence for cash, sex, or other private gain.Far from being inured to such chicanery, the vast majority of Illinoisans still see corruption as a big deal and want their politicians to model themselves after Honest Abe rather than Al Capone. When polled, Illinoisans have rated “cleaning up corruption in state government” as a higher priority than quality schools, crime reduction, a balanced budget, or lower taxes. The Illinois Education Association poll on voters’ priorities showed corruption rated the top score of ten from 69 percent of respondents, and 85 percent scored it at eight or above. And that poll was conducted nearly a year ago, before the latest investigations had picked up steam.The good news is that the systemic flaws that breed corruption in the state also make it ripe for reform. Blagojevich’s impeachment as governor led to a set of proposed changes, most of which have been gathering cobwebs since 2009, which would be a good start. In addition, the IPI has compiled its own list of recommendations: * Slowing the revolving door through restrictions on former state lawmakers’ becoming lobbyists. Currently, Illinois is one of only 14 states with no such restrictions, and the results of that shortcoming speak for themselves. * Empowering the Illinois legislative inspector general to investigate lawmakers’ corruption. As things stand now, the IG’s office is muzzled. It must seek approval from a panel of state lawmakers before opening investigations, issuing subpoenas, or publishing summary reports. The former IG has claimed that lawmakers prevented her from reporting on wrongdoing by at least one of their peers. * Forcing state lawmakers to recuse themselves from votes on matters in which they have a conflict of interest, rather than operating on the honor system. There is no current state law or even parliamentary rule requiring Illinois lawmakers to disclose a conflict of interest before a vote, much less to excuse themselves from voting on issues in which they have a personal financial stake. There is only a suggestion that they abstain in such cases. * Reforming the Illinois House rules, which grant more concentrated power to the House speaker than any other statehouse’s rules. Speaker Mike Madigan has been in power for 35 years and is also chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois, giving him near-absolute power over state politics and finances, and over which bills become law. * Passing a bipartisan constitutional amendment to end politically drawn legislative maps in the state. In his 2016 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said, “We have to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around.” The same goes for state legislative districts, which are drawn to keep incumbents safe and discourage challengers from giving voters a real choice at the polls.Illinois corruption reforms have been in limbo longer than Blagojevich was in prison. It is time to enact some into law and stop relying on the Department of Justice to root out wrongdoing. Fortunately, today these ethics reforms are back on the table in the state capitol, as fresh legislation exists with bipartisan support to actually effect the change that can address Illinois’s corruption problem.There’s no time like the present to fix the culture of corruption that’s plagued the Land of Lincoln since well before Blagojevich came on the scene. And there’s nowhere to go but up.