Members of the City Council’s ethics committee addressed empty chairs Thursday after officials from World Business Chicago — the city’s public-private economic development organization — didn’t show up to a hearing on the group’s videos featuring Mayor Brandon Johnson.
Eight committee members, many of them Johnson critics, had asked WBC officials to explain the organization’s “communications and advertising practices” after it posted several videos prominently featuring the mayor touting neighborhood investments and affordable housing.
In four of the videos, posted before Johnson formally announced his reelection bid, the mayor narrates a tour of investments on the city’s South, West, Southwest and Northwest sides.
“Chicago, we’re growing. Each of you makes Chicago work, so we’re making it work for you. Chicago is growing again because of our strategic investments in every neighborhood, making it easier to live affordably in the city we love,” he says, as neighborhood statistics on affordable housing and investment appear over photos of Johnson cutting ribbons, at ground breakings and smiling with supporters. “Let’s keep building better together.”
To critics, the videos amount to campaign-style promotion of the mayor rather than an effort to attract global businesses. The group’s mission is to “drive inclusive economic growth and job creation, support businesses, and promote Chicago as the leading global city to help our existing companies expand as well as attract new companies.”
Johnson has dismissed the criticism, arguing it is his job to promote the city.
Ald. Samantha Nugent, 39th, a frequent Johnson critic and a co-sponsor of the WBC request, said the issue was especially salient given recent controversy over nationally televised “public service” ads. In one, Trump declares that “America will never be a communist country.” Another is a rerun of a 2024 campaign ad.
More Top Picks Best Dive Computers
“I think the president says that it’s his job to promote the country too, and he had some commercials that were airing over the last weekend that clearly crossed a line, and they said they were paid for by the United States government,” Nugent said. “I think they’re both wildly inappropriate and a bad use of taxpayer dollars.”
While officials didn’t appear, WBC CEO Phil Clement sent a letter denying that taxpayer dollars funded the videos. The city has given the group $1.6 million annually in recent years, according to budget documents.
“Given his official roles, it is logical that (Johnson) would be featured in our communications materials, though I point out that no public funds were used to pay for these media activities,” Clement wrote.
Ethics Committee Chairman, Ald. Matt Martin, 47th, said he did not receive a reason that representatives failed to attend the hearing. In an email to the Tribune, WBC spokesman Andrew Hayes did not respond to several questions raised by committee members, stating, “We have no additional comment at this time.”
Both Nugent and Ald. Gilbert Villegas, 36th, suggested the Council might pull the funding it does provide to WBC as part of the annual budget process that begins next month.
Mayor Richard M. Daley founded WBC to attract multinational corporations to Chicago. Mayor Rahm Emanuel expanded the organization and filled its board with campaign donors. Former Mayor Lori Lightfoot appeared in WBC videos, though they largely focused on companies’ expansion, hiring or “pro-Chicago” decisions. One video marked her second anniversary as mayor.
With no one to question on Thursday, aldermen called up Inspector General David Glockner, who was already in attendance for a quarterly update on his office’s activities, to ask for his take.
Glockner didn’t bite, saying he couldn’t “comment on anything we may or may not investigate” and hadn’t watched any of the videos.
But he encouraged members “to look at the city’s ethics ordinance, which is quite explicit about what constitutes political activity, and think about whether what you see in those commercials meets the test under the ethics ordinance. And also think about to what extent this is an issue of judgment as opposed to a rule violation. There can be things that may not be a clear violation of a rule, but which you may from a policy perspective disagree with.”