In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

71 5 8dggjei^dc^cHeg^c\ÒZaY Although many public officials withered and retreated in silence when confronted with misdeeds in the Illinois legislature, a handful did not, and they kept up a valiant if frustrating fight. That group included Simon, who never seemed to let disappointments and rebuffs cool his enthusiasm to do all he could to expose the practices. While he fought often in the lead position, he also joined forces with others who wrestled with special interests. Chief among those were Mikva and Scariano, who returned Simon’s respect and remained friends for decades. By 1963, during his first term as state senator, Simon and his friends had made enough of a ruckus that the state’s newspapers watched the action and reported the clashes. One observer was Alfred W. Balk, a former reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times who had turned to freelance magazine writing. He contacted Simon about joining forces on a magazine article that would expose corruption in the General Assembly. Simon liked the idea, and he had plenty of ammunition, if not specifics. He provided information from his experiences, and Balk added to it and wrote the article.1 The collaboration caused an eruption rarely seen in the state. Harper’s magazine expressed interest in the article. By its nature—accusations against government officials—the article raised legal questions of libel. That and other editing issues delayed publication beyond December 1963 when Simon hoped it would appear. His preferred date played into an attempt to find someone to run against Paul Powell for secretary of state. Simon addressed these matters in a letter to Balk.2 He wrote: If the Harper’s legal department has trouble with it [the article], perhaps they can send it to me and I can tone it just a little differently, to keep the point but sound a little less filled with malice. If this can be done to make clear “malicious intent” is not present, this solves the legal problem, at least helps. In addition, it would help in the practical situation I will be facing—working with the man I wrote about. Originally we were thinking about this thing coming out in December of last year, which would have given any hot heads thirteen months to cool off. Now that time will be almost nonexistent and this could present a few practical problems for 72 Climbing the Political Mountains me in the Senate. We might work this out to solve their legal problems and my practical problems at the same time. The Powell thing which you mention in your letter I would have to treat carefully also. We were hoping to bring it out before the slate-making, certainly before the primary. I phoned, wired, cajoled to try to get someone to run against him, but could not. Now the man he is running against is of the same breed, Elmer Hoffman. I feel there is in essence no choice and no reason for me to bolt the party. I would not want the article to indicate I was. Supreme Court interpretations of libel law and the Constitution state that libel of a public official requires the plaintiff to prove “malicious intent.” Simon’s concern about how the article would go down with members of the legislature, and especially the Senate, indicates his understanding of the unwritten rule that members did not divulge unpleasant news about each other. Also, having tried to interest two Chicago newspaper editors in investigating legislative corruption without success, Simon knew the subject matter presented problems. “We did not have something that could be easily proven,” Simon admitted.3 Regardless of the risks and realities, Simon indicated no thoughts of backing down or stopping publication. The article appeared in the September 1964 issue of Harper’s under the headline “The Illinois Legislature: A Study in Corruption.”4 That got the attention of many people. In the article, Simon dealt mostly in information for a magazine audience outside Illinois with a number of anecdotes about suspicious behavior previously published in the state. These were the article’s essential parts: horse racing influences, featuring Paul Powell, who Simon never mentioned by name; the so-called West Side Bloc of Republicans whose ties to the Chicago underworld were well-known and documented; conflicts of interest, featuring complicity by both political parties; and a review of the Orville Hodge scandal with questions about its handling by officials. Much has been revealed since that time about...

Share