Married Midwest lawmaker forced to release surveillance video of her KISSING mayor on lips for two seconds in back office, as she insists it was ‘non-romantic peck’
Illinois lawmaker and Lyons Township Clerk Elyse Hoffenberg released surveillance footage showing Bridgeview Mayor Steven Landek kissing her on the lips at her office on 13 July. Hoffenberg, who is married and running as a Democrat for Cook County Commissioner, described it as a friendly, non-romantic gesture and said she had objected to it as inappropriate and unprofessional; the episode has become an issue in her campaign.
The video reportedly shows Landek holding Hoffenberg’s face before a kiss lasting about two seconds, after which they continued talking. Hoffenberg alleges political opponents threatened to publish the footage unless she withdrew from the race, accusing Republican candidate Liz Gorman and township supervisor Chris Getty of involvement; Gorman denies extortion and says she had not discussed the matter with Hoffenberg’s campaign. The dispute followed Gorman’s 13 August freedom-of-information request for the recording.
- Hoffenberg released footage of a brief kiss with Mayor Steven Landek.
- She says it was non-romantic and objected afterwards.
- Rivals deny her allegations of campaign-related extortion.
New here? Start with this
Cook County is the largest county in Illinois and includes Chicago and many surrounding suburbs. Its board of commissioners oversees county services such as public health, courts, roads and the budget, making commissioner elections locally significant.
Elyse Hoffenberg is the elected clerk for Lyons Township, a local government area in suburban Cook County, and is seeking a seat on the county board as a Democrat. Steven Landek is the mayor of Bridgeview, another Cook County suburb, and has long been active in local Democratic politics.
The recording became public through Illinois freedom-of-information rules, which can require public bodies to release official records on request. The disagreement also involves claims about campaign pressure and political opponents, which are disputed by those accused.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Hoffenberg’s account can argue that a brief, unwanted or unwelcome gesture should not be inflated into evidence of an affair or a judgment on her suitability for office. They may also regard the use or threatened release of workplace surveillance material during an election as a serious privacy and due-process concern, particularly if it was accessed or shared outside proper procedures. On this view, the central public-interest question is whether public resources and records rules were used fairly rather than whether a personal moment can be politically weaponised.
The case against
Critics can reasonably argue that elected officials are entitled to scrutiny over conduct in a public office, especially where surveillance footage is subject to a lawful records request and the official responsible for responding to it is also a candidate. They may say the footage’s apparent intimacy, the setting and the after-hours context make Hoffenberg’s description relevant for voters to assess, without assuming more than the video establishes. On this view, prompt, consistent compliance with transparency rules is important even when disclosure is personally embarrassing.