This is not the first time Illinois has been at the centre of a Senate scandal, writes David Savagein Washington
IT WAS another long-ago Illinois Senate scandal after a long history of such corruption that gave governor Rod Blagojevich an opportunity to try to sell the seat vacated by US president-elect Barack Obama.
The "blond boss" of Chicago, William Lorimer, was ousted from the Senate in 1912 after it was found that bribes had been paid to Illinois state legislators to secure him the seat.
In the late 19th century, it was commonly said that wealthy men could buy a seat in the Senate by spreading money among the state legislators who were given the task of choosing senators in the US constitution.
The idea had been that elected lawmakers, rather than ordinary people, could be trusted to make a wise selection.
The Chicago case of alleged corruption played a prominent role in the country's decision to amend the constitution and allow the state's voters to elect their senators. It was a solution that seems to have worked for 95 years, or until now.
Lorimer, an immigrant from England and a dapper and popular politician, was elected to the House of Representatives in 1895 when he was 33. In 1909, after a long deadlock in the Illinois legislature, Lorimer was chosen to represent the state in the Senate.
But a year later, the Chicago Tribune reported on allegations that bribes were paid to secure Lorimer's seat, including an admission of a state assemblyman that he had received $1,000.
Lorimer vehemently denied the charges and called for a Senate investigation. He was at first cleared, but a year later the Progressive Movement picked up the cause and the Senate reversed itself. Lorimer was ousted from the Senate by a 55-28 vote.
The Tribune has also played a part in the latest scandal - its editorials attacking the governor's alleged corruption prompted him to seek the sackings of journalists as a quid pro quo for state aid for the troubled company.
"The Lorimer case was the poster child for what was wrong with the old system," Donald Ritchie, a Senate historian, says.
"The senators were bombarded with newspaper editorials, and the feeling at the time was the best solution was to turn this over to the people."
This sentiment had been building for decades. Between 1866 and 1906, six bribery cases were brought before the Senate.
In the western states, miners who achieved instant wealth sometimes aspired to higher office. In 1899, two rival mining company owners - WG Conrad and William Clark - paid more than $1 million in bribes in the hopes of obtaining a Montana Senate seat, according to Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University.
The contest lasted through 17 ballots before a winner could be decided, and the two candidates had to pay up before each day's ballot to prevent their supporters from switching sides, she says.
Clark eventually won, but the Senate refused to seat him and the spot was vacant for two years.
Lorimer, however, was the last senator removed for corruption involving a state legislature.
In 1913, the 17th amendment to the US constitution was ratified, saying the two senators from each state shall "be elected by the people". This power-to-the-people amendment was a triumph for the Progressives, but its second clause said: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies . . ."
Since then, governors have often filled Senate seats "when vacancies happen" by making appointments or by calling for special elections.
Legal experts say they are not aware of previous allegations that governors had sought bribes in exchange for such an appointment.
In recent decades, there have been occasional allegations that money and promised favours may have prompted some candidates for the Senate to drop out of the race. In 1986, California representative Bobbi Fiedler and an aide were accused of trying to lure state senator Ed Davis to drop his bid for the Senate by offering to help pay off his campaign debts. Those charges were dismissed before the matter went to trial.
A Boston College expert who studies public corruption says it is not unusual that public officials would choose friends and associates when making appointments. "We expect our public officials to appoint people who are close to them. We expect people to give them campaign contributions," says George Brown, a law professor.
"It is normally a grey area. The two things that are unusual about this case," he says, referring to Blagojevich, "are one, the high level of the official and, two, the apparent brazenness and openness of the alleged incident." - (LA Times-Washington Post service)