* The Champaign News-Gazette editorializes today in favor of a “Yes” vote on a constitutional convention…
The opponents of a constitutional convention in Illinois have collected more than $1.2 million for a campaign to persuade Illinoisans that there’s nothing wrong with Illinois government that elections won’t fix. But that’s part of the problem. The special interests opposed to a convention are the same interests that bankroll and control the Legislature and state government today. How satisfied are you with that mess?
That opening graf sums it up quite well.
* The paper offers up several problems that a con-con could address, including this one…
The current constitution requires that “(a)ppropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.” Yet, using a loophole, the Legislature has consistently spent more than it is taking in. That’s why, according to state Comptroller Dan Hynes, the state has about $2 billion in unpaid bills, much of that carried over from the last fiscal year.
* I’m going to address this first point soon, but the second point made here is also on target…
The opponents say the con con process would be dominated by the same legislators and/or special interests that control the Legislature today. Perhaps, but that wasn’t the case with the constitution of 1970. Those delegates, many of them bright, independent thinkers, were elected on a nonpartisan ballot. They produced a document that has held up fairly well, although it needs improvement.
* And I totally agree with this conclusion…
We do not make this recommendation for a constitutional convention lightly. It will require hard work by people of integrity and good will. Preparations leading up to the convention, as well as its work, will require vigilance by the news media, good government groups and others. But Illinois government is such an embarrassment that this extraordinary step is needed. The political parties have had years to fix the situation and are either unable or unwilling to do so. The voters must act. [emphasis added]
* Jim Edgar and Dawn Clark Netsch held a joint press conference yesterday to oppose the con-con vote. Edgar and Netsch ran against each other for governor back in 1994, so they are quite an odd couple…
Both leaders said the high cost of a convention which some estimates project at approximately $80 million is difficult to justify at a time when the state is facing deficits and is not meeting its obligations on education, health care and roads.
Those deficits are allowed by the loopholes in the current constitution that they both support.
* A Tribune article today includes this insight into the interest groups opposing the con-con…
They share the belief that stopping a constitutional convention now will be cheaper—and safer—than spending money on electing and lobbying delegates to push their own special agendas against each other.
That’s true to a point. More next week.
* The Paul Simon Institute poll asked about the convention as well. Is a con-con ncessary because state leaders are not addressing the problems, or could the problems be addressed other ways and a convention might not help and could make things worse?
*** UPDATE *** Jim Edgar is featured in a new TV ad by the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution…
LIVE session coverage...
- Vote Quimby! - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 10:49 am:
St. Clair County voters won’t be getting the corrective flyer on the con-con:
http://madisonrecord.com/news/
215442-official-st.-clair-county-no
-under-jurisdiction-of-cook-c
ounty-con-con-ruling
- Captain Flume - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 10:55 am:
==The political parties have had years to fix the situation and are either unable or unwilling to do so. The voters must act. ==
But if, as some say, the parties or legislators are picking their voters rather than the other way around, then there seems to be little point in optimism that those same people won’t be running a constituional convention, no matter how “non-partisan” the candidates seem to be. But bring it on and let’s see low it can go!
- Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 10:57 am:
If the PS Poll is correct, con-con proponents have a huge mountain to climb.
- wordslinger - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 11:01 am:
The way redistricting works, this is the only way to make the powers that be nervous. That’s a good thing.
- siriusly - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 11:05 am:
The unions are doing a bang up job of lying to their members and scaring them into voting no. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I heard yesterday about a family friend who is a retired teacher who is voting no because the Con Con would take away her pension. What a crock.
Despite that, I think it is going to pass. People are in a “change” mood, and this question is one way to express it.
- Vote Quimby! - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 11:14 am:
SDS–I think you are right. I think the numbers will be better than in 1988, but not enough to convene a con-con. Unless we can knock on every door between now an…
- curious george - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 12:15 pm:
Is the problem the loopholes or the people who use them?-Will another “better” constitution not have loopholes?-it seems the pollies are more the problem and will continue to be with a new improved piece of paper
- archpundit - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 12:55 pm:
As a suggestion–you might put that below the fold since it’s plays automatically.
- Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 12:57 pm:
Somehow, I just can’t get the thought out of my head that some of the most ardent con-con proponents (I’m not referring to Rich, who is, of course, a jounalist) are just looking to make a name for themselves, hoping to get elected to the convention and somehow claim credit for the new document. As Rich would say, “I’m just sayin’ … “
- Rich Miller - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 12:57 pm:
Fixed. Thanks to the APIC people for pointing this out first.
- Harry Caray's Galsses - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 1:00 pm:
A con con is nothing more than a lobbyist full employment act. Special interests are salivating for a con con. The opponents just do not feel it is time to give extremists an arena for views that cannot stand up when there is accountability for individuals who push those agendas. This pie in the sky “good things will happen” just trust the process view is as frightening as it is naive.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 1:10 pm:
===Special interests are salivating for a con con.===
Can you ever write a comment without lying?
Who is funding the anti ads? THE SPECIAL INTERESTS. Do you take us all for fools? Try peddling those lies on sites that will lap them up like doofuses.
I’m really getting tired of this crud from you. Stick to the facts or go away. Last warning.
- Crimefighter - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 1:21 pm:
Jim Edgar has let Illinois down.
- 2ConfusedCrew - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 1:31 pm:
Capt Fax:
Whoa don’t get so upset. It’s just the ConCon con not something important — like a tax on blogs.
BTW is it fair to note that your newest supporter closed their SPI bureau over a year ago?
Perhaps we can get their attention by suggesting a ConCon con article combining ALL Il universities under SIU. How SIU-Urbana sound?
- 2ConfusedCrew - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 1:36 pm:
That’s a baker’s dozen, right?” Blagojevich jokingly asked reporters after an unrelated news conference in Blue Island. “I consider that a lucky number.”
Late word is Blagoof is joining Capt Fax, Houli and the News-Gazette backing the ConCon con.
Hang on
- Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 1:39 pm:
===Special interests are salivating for a con con.===
About as false as you can get, since they’re doing quite nicely under the current document. But, you can bet they’d be all over any convention to do their best to ensure that the existing lobbying system stays in place, as well as to protect their other advantages.
- Juice - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 1:48 pm:
Rich,
The link on the video doesn’t work either.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 2:13 pm:
Whenever one side of an issue has tons of money and is spending liberally to sway public opinion and the other side has only good intentions and smart people advocating for it, stick with the good intentions because the money guys are trying to hose you.
I only wish Quinn was more of a crook so he would have a few million to spend and trash the current document and maybe get a little notoriety for himself.
Also, is either Edgar or Netsch receiving any type of compensation for their anti con con advocacy.
- Anon - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 3:40 pm:
Rich - Perhaps we can have a forum with you and Harry Carey’s Glasses to discuss this on an open thread. That way everyone is well educated on this very important issue.
- Bill - Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 4:45 pm:
Don’t be so hard on Harry’s glasses! Maybe the special interests he is referring are the single interest groups like those for or against abortion, for or against gay marriage, anti-public education voucher advocates, both sides of the income tax issue(hold on to your wallets, concon fans), gun crackpots on both sides, etc. Our current constitution has a pretty progressive and protective bill of rights that should be preserved and ,oh yeah,it protects participants in public employee pension plans. It is a pretty decent document. I’m going to vote NO to preserve what we currently have.
- wordslinger - Saturday, Oct 25, 08 @ 12:43 am:
Look, for Con-con, any reasonable assessment would be that the basic structure will remain. No one is going to do away with the shared powers of three branches, for instance.
But there will be amendments. I’m favor of a couple — redistricting reform, amendatory veto elimination.
All the “progressives” out there should welcome a Con-Con — if, as you claim to fear, the right wing will hijack the process, it would be the best organizing motivation you could wish for.
- Moderate REpub - Monday, Oct 27, 08 @ 10:13 am:
Perhaps we can get their attention by suggesting a ConCon con article combining ALL Il universities under SIU. How SIU-Urbana sound?
You don’t need a con con for that, the legislature can do it on their own, it has been talked about on more than one occasion. However, it would be The University of Illinois at Carbondale. All research institutions under U of Is umbrella, the rest would be liberal Arts schools under a different name. Kind of like what California does now.