SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Question of the day

Thursday, Apr 30, 2015

* LA Times

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld state laws that bar elected judges from asking for money to support their campaigns.

In a 5-4 decision, the court rejected a free-speech claim brought by a Florida judge.

“Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “A state may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor — and without having personally asked anyone for money.”

The decision marks one of the few times the high court has rejected a free-speech claim involving politics and campaigning. Roberts split from the court’s four conservative justices to uphold the Florida law. […]

“Hostility to campaigning by judges entitles the people of Florida to amend their Constitution to replace judicial elections with the selection of judges by lawyers’ committees,” Scalia said. “It does not entitle the Florida Supreme Court to adopt, or this court to endorse, a rule of judicial conduct that abridges candidates’ speech in the judicial election that the Florida Constitution prescribes.”

* That’s already the case here. From the Illinois Supreme Court Rules

A [judicial] candidate shall not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions.

A candidate may establish committees of responsible persons to conduct campaigns for the candidate through media advertisements, brochures, mailings, candidate forums and other means not prohibited by law. Such committees may solicit and accept reasonable campaign contributions, manage the expenditure of funds for the candidate’s campaign and obtain public statements of support for his or her candidacy.

Such committees are not prohibited from soliciting and accepting reasonable campaign contributions and public support from lawyers.

Gov. Bruce Rauner wants to ban attorneys from contributing directly to judicial campaigns. However, he can’t stop them from forming a 501(c)(4) dark money group or even likely ban them from forming an independent expenditures committee. Attorneys could also contribute to the state parties.

* The Question: Should Illinois ban attorneys from contributing directly to judicial campaign committees? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.


survey services

- Posted by Rich Miller        


55 Comments
  1. - Chris - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:11 am:

    Ban *only* attorneys?


  2. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:12 am:

    Yes…please…for the love of God make this happen. This is the very definition of a conflict of interest. And while I understand the dark money and PAC contributions, unless SCOTUS steps into that realm as well then we may have to wait a LONG time before we cross that bridge. This would be a start.


  3. - Mama - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:19 am:

    ++Should Illinois ban attorneys from contributing directly to judicial campaign committees?++ I voted no because people should be free to support any campaign they want. However, there should be a clear list of who gave money to whom.


  4. - Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:20 am:

    As long as judges are elected through the political process, lawyers should be able to participate in this process - and this includes donations. There are a whole lot of reasons why a lawyer would want to donate to a judicial campaign that have nothing to do with trying to influence judicial decision-making on the bench. Why would we enact a policy that reflects a greater lack of trust in our lawyers and judges than other political campaigns? I hardly believe this is justified.


  5. - walker - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:23 am:

    No. Most employed attorneys do not litigate in state courts.


  6. - hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:24 am:

    Why would you just ban attorneys?

    Their clients would still be able to donate right?


  7. - Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:35 am:

    If you want independence, then businesses too appear in front of judges and some give or spend huge amounts of money for or against candidates. It is not just lawyers, so this simplistic solution will do little. (And maybe lawyers would love to be excluded so that they have an excuse to say “No” to a solicitation.


  8. - ash - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:36 am:

    Only if we ban corporate contributions to legislative campaigns. Similar conflicts of interest.


  9. - Amalia - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:36 am:

    No. what walker wrote.


  10. - perry noya - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:38 am:

    For just one example, Justice Anne Burke has a $174K political fund even though she ran unopposed. How could banning attorneys from direct contributions make the system any less corrupt? I voted no. As long as we elect judges, let’s not pretend we really don’t.


  11. - Tony Clifton - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:39 am:

    walker: what are you talkin’ about?


  12. - Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:39 am:

    Also, by prohibiting campaign contributions of any kind, you are hindering the candidates that do not have the backing of political organizations. These types of candidates need to raise significant money to be able to compete with a slated candidate. Not sure this accomplishes the goal that they are setting out to acheive.


  13. - Wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:40 am:

    – Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot –

    It’s good to be the chief justice. You can say any crazy thing and issue contradictory rulings without batting an eye.

    To the question, no, unless you ban anyone who could possibly have an interest before a court ever.

    Which means everyone.


  14. - Under Further Review - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:42 am:

    The present system of choosing judges has its flaws. Fundraising is one of the areas that poses problems.

    One of the reforms that I have questioned is that judges (and judicial candidates) are essentially barred from politics unless they are campaigning for judge. Under the former Illinois Constitution and the applicable laws, judges were permitted to participate more fully in politics. Today, if a sitting judge is interested in another elected office which is not a part of the judiciary, the judge must resign office in order to run. In the past such figures as Governor Henry Horner, Mayors Edward Dunne and William Dever, and numerous State’s Attorneys (Crowe, Swanson, Gutknecht, etc.) were all judges prior to their election to other offices. Even US Senator Stephen Douglas was a former judge. Had the present system been in place back in the day, Illinois would have had many fewer important candidates for elected office.


  15. - Tommydanger - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:43 am:

    I know of at least one Judge that won election and not only refused campaign contributions from attorneys, but instructed the campaign committee to not disclose the names of any contributors to the candidate.


  16. - walker - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:45 am:

    TonyC: You impersonatin’ Rauner?

    Hah!


  17. - redeft - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:45 am:

    Lawyers are often in the best position to know the qualification of judges and whether a particular lawyer will make a good judge. While I would be happy to see a system where judges are not elected, as long as they are elected, it would be wrong to ban those with the most knowledge from contributing.


  18. - ToughGuy - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:48 am:

    Voted no. Include corporations and PAC’s and I’ll reconsider


  19. - Salty - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:57 am:

    No. When you first run for judge, a lot of your friends are attorneys who you work with and went to law school with. And only way it becomes a yes is if a judge has to recuses himself from a case if the plaintiff or defendant donated money to him (even though this would seem problematic).

    John Oliver has a great piece on electing judges if you have a spare 10 mins or so.


  20. - vibes - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:57 am:

    Voted no. Only if we also ban taxpayers from contributing to legislators or governors who set tax policy.


  21. - Tony Clifton - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 11:58 am:

    How the heck do most employed attorneys “not litigate in state courts?” Regardless of your position on the subject at hand, where do they litigate, the Thunderdome?


  22. - Guzzlepot - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:03 pm:

    @Clifton. Most lawyers do stuff like real estate closings, drafting contracts, in house counsel for a company &c. Relatively few lawyers are in front of a Judge day in and day out. You can count the number of jury trials the average lawyer does in his or her career on both hands and one foot and have two or three toes left over.

    Why should those lawyers be banned from contributing to judicial campaigns?


  23. - Peanut Butter - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:03 pm:

    So a corporation is a person but not an attorney? Banning donations where there is a perceived conflict of interest is a bad precedent although a ban on donations from public sector contractors might be interesting. Maybe its time that we used public financing for judicial campaigns?


  24. - Guzzlepot - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:09 pm:

    No. First off, if money can be political speech what right does the government have to restrict lawyer’s speech. Second, Rauner’s position is annoyingly hypocritical. He complains about the influence of one group of people and then goes out and forms an eight figure pack or two with contributions from about a dozen guys. And he doesn’t see the contradiction.


  25. - Cheswick - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:12 pm:

    I voted no. Lawyers are very good at self-policing — much better than say, doctors, corporations, rich people, etc.


  26. - Under Further Review - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:13 pm:

    I omitted to state that I voted “No.” Truthfully, apart from friend or family members, lawyers are the only ones who usually follow judicial candidates or are interested in contributing. What’s the alternative under the present system? Self-funding candidates?


  27. - D.P.Gumby - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:17 pm:

    It is disingenuous to prohibit attorney contributions while allowing docs, insurance companies, chamber of commerce, big business, etc. to contribute. It is a right wing anti-consumer fallacy that only lawyers contribute and that they influence judicial elections. Remember that in Caperton (the U.S.S.C. case where contributions were held to violate due process) it was the coal company business man who had contributed millions more than the total of all others in the campaign through a front organization. In Wisconsin, it has been the business/chamber money that has been traced to the demonstrably false televisions ads that elected the justice who blocked discipline against himself. So don’t buy the myth that lawyers are controlling judicial elections.


  28. - Anon. - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:21 pm:

    No. If you’re going to elect judges, you have to let people support the campaigns of judges they want to elect. If you don’t want attorneys giving to judges’ campaigns, don’t have judges’ campaigns. Also, as a practical matter, this just drives the money into other channels. Let everyone give, but disclose every contribution.


  29. - ZC - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:45 pm:

    >> Gov. Bruce Rauner wants to ban attorneys from contributing directly to judicial campaigns. However, he can’t stop them from forming a 501(c)(4) dark money group.

    I’m pretty sure he would encourage that, if the lawyers in question were in line with his policy vision.


  30. - Formerpol - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:46 pm:

    The plaintiffs’ personal injury trial lawyers have way too much power in Illinois. They run the bar associations, select the judges, and dominate the legislative process. Now they are even intimidating judges who rule against them by financing the judges’ non-retention. Enough. This is unethical.
    Judges in Cook County are influenced by whom they know and who contributed. Politicians try to clout various cases by appearing in court as a lawyer in cases they have had no previous involvement in .
    It happens all the time. At least take the $$ threats out of the picture.


  31. - Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:49 pm:

    === where do they litigate, the Thunderdome? ===

    No, but I do think you’re on to something.


  32. - Guzzlepot - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:54 pm:

    @Formerpol. Judicial retention elections are almost a formality. I’ll bet more judges have been indicted in Cook County over the last three or four decades than have lost retention votes. And every lawyer knows that.

    Question, has Rauner provided any specific examples of a situation where campaign donations influenced a judicial decision? I am going to guess not.


  33. - ZC - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 12:57 pm:

    Also, Rauner can’t stop lawyers from forming a 501(c)4 dark money group, but Illinois could do more to regulate any 501c4s that want to influence local races.

    There’s plenty in the US Constitution protecting independent spending. But there’s nothing protecting these groups that want to conceal their donors. It’s just inertia and Republican obstruction on Capitol Hill. We could ban undisclosed contributions to 501c4s that influence local races if we wanted, though there is a fair objection whether if we try, “the shadow takes another shape and grows again.”


  34. - Guzzlepot - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 1:02 pm:

    Using Rauner’s logic corporations and industry groups should be banned from contributing to legislators who sit on committees that oversee their industries or their regulators. They should also be banned from contributing to elected officials whose offices do business with them. So for instance, banks couldn’t contribute to Treasurer campaigns, contractors couldn’t contribute to Township Highway Commisioners &c. If you accept his rreasoning I think you have to extend it to those areas.


  35. - been there - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 1:21 pm:

    probably yes, but then their spouses or other relatives will contribute. they’ll find a way—they’re lawyers.


  36. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 1:41 pm:

    If they can vote, they ought to be able to donate.

    Which leaves out corporations, doesn’t it?


  37. - Left Leaner - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 1:42 pm:

    No. To your point, Rich, we’d just see lots of 501(c)(4) organizations pop up. Better to at least be able to see where/who the money is coming from. Also, as others here have pointed out, ban $$ from attorneys today, who’s next tomorrow?


  38. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 1:51 pm:

    Voted “No”

    “Why?”

    I am for 100% sunshine.

    Look it up. As long as every donor and every dollar, both, are accounted for, then not only can they give, they should give at any level, if all is reported.


  39. - JoanP - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 1:56 pm:

    1. The vast majority of attorneys NEVER appear in court.

    2. Why JUST attorneys?


  40. - Demoralized - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 1:58 pm:

    I voted yes but only on the condition that you ban contributions from every single interest group to any elected official. Of course that isn’t going to happen.


  41. - ALawGuy - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 2:28 pm:

    I voted no. If judges are going to be elected, they need to raise campaign funds. Who better knows the quality of judges, and are thus better able to decide whom to support, then lawyer? Since it is not legal for anyone to donate anonymously, unless they form one of the new “corporations are people” secret campaign committees, judges will know which lawyers donated to their campaigns. But if a judge is influenced by campaign contributions to determine how to rule, they shouldn’t be on the bench; and they likely will be federally indicted for bribery. (OK, maybe that’s wishful thinking, but we did have Greylord.)


  42. - Gary Coleman - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 2:34 pm:

    What you talkin’ bout Joan P? Who is this majority of lawyers that do not appear in court? Seriously.


  43. - Gary Coleman - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 2:36 pm:

    Also, OW has it right. Collect and disclose. Fair enough. Let the electorate decide.


  44. - DuPage - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 2:52 pm:

    =where do they litigate, the Thunderdome?=

    There are lots of lawyers who work for government agencies that don’t actually go to court. They review contracts, complaints, determine if something is or is not legal in a government contract. I know one that works for the federal government. There are a lot of laws, rulings, regulations, and codes that conflict with each other that all have to be evaluated and corrected if need be.


  45. - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 3:07 pm:

    I voted No.

    Full disclosure is the answer here, not taking away the rights of one segment of the population.


  46. - zatoichi - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 3:12 pm:

    If you are going to ban attorney’s, why not simply ban everyone from contributing to any politician for all of the exact same influence reasons. That includes all dollars from any source. Since that will never happen I voted NO. People should be allowed to contribute to whom they wish.


  47. - Wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 3:38 pm:

    Is it news to some that the great majority of lawyers never appear before a judge?

    How is that possible, if you have an “opinion” on the subject?

    It’s not really an opinion if it has no basis in reality.


  48. - green wants a handou - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 3:57 pm:

    Should taxpayers be banned from contributing to politicans that vote to increase or decrease taxes? Where will the stupidity end? Rauner and his rich pals can spend all the money they want to buy whatever elected offic they covet, but working people shouldn’t be able to give. What the heck is happening to Democracy?


  49. - orzo - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 4:18 pm:

    I am genuinely surprised that so many commenters do not know that most lawyers rarely, if ever, go to court. Must be the influence of TV–you don’t see shows or news stories about in-house counsel or transactional lawyers. I am also surprised that people have no problem with huge corporations giving money to candidates, but want to deny that right to one specific profession. Similarly, our governor wants to ban lawyers (and unions) from involvement in political campaigns, but thinks it’s just ducky for rich guy pacs to give millions–his transparent purpose is to put his shaft-the-working-people thumb on the scales.


  50. - walker - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 6:08 pm:

    Rauner seems to share a fault with many politicians and pundits: Repeating a policy stand that he heard somewhere, which sounds good on the surface, without checking to see what’s happening in the real world. Like the reality that most lawyers earn their livings outside of courtrooms.

    He’s made this kind of mistake repeatedly. That’s why how, and how well, Rauner is informed, is becoming an issue. We expected there to be a significant learning curve for him, and would like to see more signs of his climbing it.


  51. - Perry Masonic Temple - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 8:35 pm:

    Orzo, and Wordslinger, I have no idea what you are talking about, but I know attorneys who have been in court every single day for over a quarter of a century and lawyers who have more jury trials than appendages.


  52. - Sunshine - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 9:20 pm:

    Voted to ban.

    In fact, I personally would like to see all contributions to all political/public offices banned and funding be provided equally through a tax on weed.


  53. - Frost - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 9:24 pm:

    Rauner’s proposed blanket ban on attorney contributions to judges would be unconstitutional.


  54. - Precinct Captain - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 9:54 pm:

    We should ban people who are the stated beneficiaries of independent expenditure campaigns from donating to such campaigns.

    http://www.elections.il.gov/CampaignDisclosure/A1List.aspx?ID=577353&FiledDocID=577353&ContributionType=All%20Types&Archived=False


  55. - truthurts - Thursday, Apr 30, 15 @ 10:52 pm:

    3M? Dow? Monsanto? These are the establishments Raunering this country. Why not prohibit these “people”?


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Reader comments closed for the weekend
* Summers compares Trump to Rauner
* New White House website references "thousands of shootings in Chicago"
* Let's try cashing in on our rich heritage
* And now for a little bit of good news
* Unemployment up, jobs down
* Question of the day
* *** UPDATED x1 - Kirk declined to fly with Obama *** Kirk won't stop saying goofy things
* Um... about that "fully funded" boast
* Cullerton, Radogno "playing coy" about tax hike percentage
* "Institute" ginning up opposition to Senate deal
* A SOTS preview?
* IDOT warns of doom for I-55 toll lanes
* Is the end near for legislator pensions?
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Yesterday's blog posts

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............
<


Search This Blog...

Search the 98th General Assembly By Bill Number
(example: HB0001)

Search the 98th General Assembly By Keyword

  
* Android Pay may soon support PayPal cards and Visa Checkout
* HTC Halfbeak revived with more pictures on Weibo
* Foxconn believes it will take $7 billion to take Sharp to the US
* Galaxy S7 Nougat, 600MHz Auction, and Battle of the Voice Assistants | #PNWeekly 236
* Apple Watch Pop Up Shop at Galeries Lafayette in Paris Shuts Down
* Will Xiaomi staying out of the US help or hurt it?
* ‘Hot Wheels: Race Off’ review

* Dominican Republic academy re-opens with upgrades
* Dominican Republic academy re-opens with upgrades
* New Hall of Famers reflect on highest honor
* Fans will be able to stream live games in '17
* New Hall of Famers get their close-up
* Williams says Hall not just for 'all-time greats'
* Collins named fourth-best catching prospect in MLB

...............


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
WordPress

Loading


* Illinois Governor Extends Tax Incentive Program.....
* Tom Kacich: A key week for the fiscal future of.....
* The budget ball is in your court..
* Our View: Reject plan for huge tax hikes..
* Scott Reeder: 'Compromise' is no compromise at .....
* How to fight Illinois' status quo - Chicago Tri.....
* Our View: Reject plan for huge tax hikes | Nort.....
* Our View: Reject plan for huge tax hikes - Nort.....


* Normal council seeks legal opinion on 45-day gag rule
* EXCHANGE: Researcher turning science fiction into reality
* EXCHANGE: Retiring Wood River fire chief reflects on career
* The Latest: Protesters still marching through Washington
* Illinois offers free tax preparation to low-income residents
* Illinois judge: Ban on shackling child suspects adds costs
* Crowds turn out for women's marches across Illinois
* Aaron Schock case assigned to federal judge in Urbana
* The Latest: Chicago protesters spill into city's downtown
* More female wrestlers competing in Illinois high schools

* Illinois treasurer seeks payout of unclaimed life insurance
* Illinois Senate to try again on pension reform
* Illinois Senate 'bargain' includes hike in minimum wage
* Governor extends tax incentive program
* Schock case reassigned to Urbana's Judge Colin Bruce
* Background-checks policy leads U of I to withdraw 11 job offers
* Film industry generates half-billion in Illinois spending
* Illinois Senate leaders promise budget-deal vote Wednesday
* Jesse White wants ads on license plate renewal reminders to offset cost
* A new tax on sodas, sugary drinks? It might be part of Illinois budget deal

* Like our roundup? Share it around.
* In the market for a new home? Here are your best bets.
* Illinois Holocaust Museum bets on rock 'n' roll
* How this Loop company survived the killing of its CEO
* Thousands of marchers flood downtown Chicago


* Police: 16-year-old boy stole packages, left baby in getaway car
* Man critically wounded in Austin shooting
* “Hawk,” feathered, in winter. What winter? Chicago outdoors notes
* 2 wounded in South Side shooting
* Police: Person killed in Bishop Ford crash
* Man stabbed, critically wounded in South Chicago
* 2 teenage boys wounded in East Garfield Park shooting
* Man shot in the head in Dunning
* Man shot in Longwood Manor
* 3 arrested after melee at Naperville bar


* Women's march follows anti-abortion vigil in Valparaiso
* Taraji P. Henson rents Southwest Side theater for free 'Hidden Figures' screening
* LINDA C. BLACK HOROSCOPES for 1/22/17
* Andy Murray, Angelique Kerber out in fourth round at Australian Open
* 3 dead, 23 wounded in city shootings
* Sunday's matchup: Canucks at Blackhawks
* Huge rallies may signal emerging anti-Trump movement. Or not.
* South Chicago man accused of shooting woman
* Strong quake hits Solomon Islands; some damage reported but no tsunami
* Russia set to move closer to decriminalize domestic violence


The widget AQL4JYGHIY powered by Feed Informer does not exist.


* Illinois treasurer seeks payout of unclaimed life insurance
* Illinois Senate to try again on pension reform
* Illinois Senate 'bargain' includes hike in minimum wage
* Our View: Give President Trump a chance to succeed
* Angie Muhs: Teaming up to tackle community needs in Springfield
* Schoenburg: Rauner's lawyer takes comfort in high court budget decision
* Big Brothers Big Sisters to note National Mentoring Month
* Local generosity inspires record-setting grant potential
* Statehouse Insider: Will this week break the budget logjam?
* Guest Column: Put politics aside and pass a state budget


* Divorces 1/22/17
* Pantagraph Fish and Feather Expo bigger than ever
* John A. Logan College celebrates its 35,000th graduate
* Author: Abuse of disabled children often part of complex cycle
* PFOP: Tiny Cropsey county champs in 1938
* Health care leaders: Key ACA provisions should remain in place
* Wired In: Kevin Guo
* Letters from Birdland: Another victim of the budget battle
* Guest Commentary: Why anti-war movement welcomes Trump
* The Big 10 with Jeff D'Alessio, Jan. 22, 2017


* Normal council seeks legal opinion on 45-day gag rule
* Israel pushes ahead with settlements as Trump takes office
* The Latest: Trump changes course after denouncing protesters
* Illinois treasurer seeks payout of unclaimed life insurance
* Italy rescuers say ice thwarts manual search of buried hotel

* House lawmakers overcome hurdle on key tra...
* Rodney Davis talks funding with Bloomingto...
* The agency that fought Illiana gets a new ...
* Rep. Dold takes educational cruise down Ch...
* Lawmakers decry high turnover rate of VA h...
* CBD Oil, and politics
* Simon considering state Senate bid
* Killer Congressman Tom MacArthur trying to...
* Shutdown? State may not notice
* Rep. Bob Dold

* More than 1000 Attend Springfield Call 2 A......

* What happened in week three of the Colonie......

* What is the difference between Betsy DeVos and Davos, Switzerland?
* On Saturday four million in the streets made America great.
* Ross Dress For Less Nears Completion, Is Hiring
* Free Enterprise? Buffett Counts On Bailout
* GOP Fallback: When In Doubt Blame Pelosi
* Buy Hasty Fed Bailout Now, Regret It Later
* Why I Won't Shed Tears For Wall Street
* In A Gloomy Economy, Signs of Light
* Who Pays For Bogus UAL Bankruptcy Post?
* Let's Get Story Behind Faulty UAL Post


* New Authority Allows DCFS to Strengthen and Preserve Families - Federal waiver grants DCFS flexibility to better care for fostered youth
* Illinois Film Industry Generates $499 Million in 2016 - Chicago named #5 Best Place to Live and Work as a Moviemaker
* State Announces Free Tax Preparation for Low Income Families
* Governor Announces Appointments
* Governor Takes Bill Action




      Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller