Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Tipping their hand?
Posted in:
* The Illinois Policy Institute’s “Director of Labor” Paul Kersey has penned an item for the “think tank” entitled “Union bosses silence ObamaCare critiques to pander to Democrat allies”…
Just a couple of weeks ago the AFL-CIO passed a sharp criticism of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as ObamaCare, in a written document at its national convention in Los Angeles. This document was the last of a string of union complaints about the national health insurance law and the way that the Obama administration has implemented it.
But now that Congressional Republicans have started to address union concerns, unions have suddenly shut up. The silence from union lobbyists and activists is not particularly surprising, but it does reveal something about the real priorities of union officials: they’d rather stick to party politics than join forces with the other side to defend their workers. […]
The union establishment is heavily invested in the Democratic Party. Illinois union-funded Political Action Committees contributed more than $25 million to candidates between 2002 and 2012, and out of that more than 80 percent went to Democrats, which is fairly typical for union PACs.
* Since he mentioned the Illinois angle, I thought I’d point out that Director of Labor Kersey missed what should’ve been a noteworthy development.
Yesterday, the Illinois AFL-CIO’s Executive Board passed a resolution on the Affordable Care Act…
RESOLVED, that the Illinois AFL-CIO urges President Obama and Congress to undertake immediate changes to the implementation and regulation of the ACA that will help millions of workers already part of effective, efficient health plans to keep the plans they have.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that non-profit multiemployer plans and other self-insured health programs should have access to the ACA’s premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions on behalf of working families, just as for-profit insurance companies will;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the administration rescind the ACA’s corporate welfare provision, the belly button tax, in which workers and non-profit health plans unfairly subsidize the insurance industry:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employer responsibility rules should be fixed further by extending employer responsibility requirements to more employers, especially to construction companies with five or more employees as was provided by the Merkley Amendment included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, we will view any solution that does not fully address the outlined issues as unacceptable and will do everything in our power to protect the Taft-Hartley and other self- insured plans we currently have in place.
A “think tank” should probably think. Just sayin…
* I put “think tank” in quotes because the IL Policy Institute is basically a large lobbying group. From their online lobbying disclosure report…
Notice that the group’s “Director of Labor” is also one of its lobbyists.
And in case you lost count, that’s ten registered Illinois Policy Institute lobbyists who focus on 13 rather broad policy issues.
* And that brings me to a recent Chuck Sweeny column…
Gov. Pat Quinn’s spokesman Abdon Pallasch used to write for the Chicago Sun-Times. I don’t think he was a journalism critic there, but in his new role working for the state, he has become one.
Pallasch, emailing the Register Star Editorial Page Editor Wally Haas from “il.gov” last week, took issue with a column by Scott Reeder that this newspaper ran. Pallasch rebutted points with which the governor’s office disagreed. That’s legitimate.
But Pallasch stumbled into the world of “not fine” when he questioned whether Reeder, who has covered state government for two decades for newspapers, is practicing bonafide journalism because he now works for The Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative policy and research organization.
“The Illinois Policy Institute is not a journalism organization nor is it independent,” Pallasch wrote. He then “informed” us that the group is “a Koch Brothers-linked interest group that refuses to disclose where it gets its $3 million in ‘donations’ a year.”
Pallasch also said “The Charles Koch Institute lists the Illinois Policy Institute as a ‘partner organization’ for its ‘Liberty@Work’ program. The Koch Brothers Institute lists internships at IPI.”
And I say, so what? Uber-liberal billionaire George Soros funds liberal groups, and the libertarian Koch Brothers fund conservative groups. But in this country it has never been any government official’s job to define what’s journalism and what isn’t.
* I wholly agree that it’s not the government’s role to define who is and who isn’t a journalist. Abdon wasn’t really doing that, however. He was just pointing out where he thought Reeder got stuff wrong and where his pay check originated. He has no legal authority to define anyone or anything.
But where Abdon (or Chuck) failed is not mentioning that Scott, who I’ve known for many years and always liked and respected, now works directly for a Statehouse lobbying outfit.
* So, if your newspaper is OK with running a lobbying outfit’s stuff, that’s cool. But perhaps it should be mentioned?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 2:54 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Tipping their hand?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rich- Great stuff. More please.
Comment by Rahm'sMiddleFinger Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:02 pm
I don’t know why anyone takes the Illinois Policy Institute seriously. I stopped reading their reports/publications a long time ago because every report manipulated certain facts (incorrectly) to fall in their with their slanted positions. I love how they tried to claim they were journalists in order to obtain seats on the floor. They are a joke and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Comment by Dirt Diver Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:05 pm
It is disturbing that Illinois newspapers are straight-facedly running IPI stuff as though it is a real wire service. More people should call more papers out on it. Our statewide news outlets (present company excepted, of course), are an underfunded and anemic bunch, if not outright lazy. This is disgraceful. My old J-school profs are rolling in their graves (or their La-Z boys if still suckin’ air).
Comment by Ray del Camino Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:17 pm
This is an unfortunate side effect of the financial pressures faced by the journalism industry. If you’re a local Illinois newspaper and you’re being offered free content about state politics, you’re much more likely to slot it in than paying for a syndicated piece from George Will.
Thing is, George Will still has to get his original columns through the Washington Post editors. While not perfect, it’s an editorial and fact checking process you’re not getting from a lobbying outfit like the IPI. Even if you disclose the affiliation, are editors standing by what the IPI gives them? It’s a breakdown of accountability that columnists like Chuck Sweeney should be concerned about for their own sake.
Comment by Brick Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:19 pm
No reason to hide your light under a bushel. Disclose the affiliation and let the work speak for itself.
The same can be said for a certain Sun-Times columnist — union-busting, pension-stealing, Detroit-fear-mongering R. Eden Martin, the Civvie’s grand poohbah, now and forever.
And it’s nice that the Tribbies let Dennis Byrne troll for government and business p.r. clients on its editorial pages, but a little disclosure would add perspective. Dennis might get angry and freak out, but, hey, that’s going to happen no matter what.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:35 pm
Rich,
I was surprised by Mr. Sweeney’s column when it was written. The RRStar is bleeding to death slowly, and moves like giving Mr. Reeder a voice in their paper has further alienated their readership. He is their de-facto Springfield Bureau Chief.
They also give a prominent blog to a very conservative member of the Winnebago County Board.
Look, I realize that these moves are cheap (maybe even free) copy in which to sell ads around, but news organizations like the RRStar risk further erosion of their relevancy and reputations. That’s why I read the Capitol Fax. It’s old fashioned journalism delivered in a 21st century manner (although a Droid app would be greatly appreciated).
I’ve never understood why Gatehouse doesn’t use Bernie as it’s “Statehouse Reporter” in all of its papers.
It’s sad really. In our age, our political system could use a quality fact-checking, journalistic organization for popular consumption.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:38 pm
Reeder is assigned the title “journalist in residence” for the same reason IPI calls itself a “think tank” - to try and create the perception of credibility.
Reeder put in his time as a reporter in Illinois and elsewhere; he deserves credit for that, and we can’t take that away from him.
But now he works for IPI. And that fact, in combination with the unabashed content of his columns, make clear that Reeder is no longer a “journalist” but instead a paid writer for an advocacy organization.
Comment by Raymond Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:41 pm
Just want to point out that Illinois lobbying laws are broad and strict. IPI, as an Illinois think tank, has to engage with Illinois agencies and legislators to generate its work: studies and opinion pieces on Illinois state politics. Seems to me that IPI is erring on the side of caution by having their Illinois policy point people registered as lobbyists so they do not run afoul of the law when communicating with Illinois politicians and bureaucrats. I’d like to see Rich Miller identify where any of these IPI “lobbyists” in fact directly lobby on behalf of any commercial or business interest. Bet he can’t identify one.
Comment by Conservative Republican Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:47 pm
Abdon and Scott are two sides of the same coin, the collapse of the journalism industry in this country, and I can’t help but feel like the people of Illinois would be better served if both men were back in their old haunts at the Sun-Times and Small newspapers.
We are not well served as citizens when reporters with experience and knowledge gained by years of observing politics who (making an economically rational decision) decide to take those talents to flack in government for more pay and more job security than the news biz offers. Nor are we well served when reporters with experience and knowledge who wish to continue to contribute to public discourse can only find writing opportunities with entities with questionable business/funding that raise questions about their reporting no matter their personal integrity.
Not sure how the journalism industry remedies these things in the current marketplace and until it figures it out, journalists like Abdon and Scott have to make their own individual choices about how to navigate this new world in the best way for themselves and their families.
Unfortunately, as their readers and as citizens served by their work reporting on government, we also have to adapt to mostly doing without having that Fourth Estate as a facilitator of rational, calm political discourse and independent information as a major force in our civic life until or unless journalism adopts a new model. In the meantime, we’re on our way back to journalism being viewed as less of a profession and our trust in news as a whole is eroded. With that trust erosion is the increased difficulty of our coming together as citizens from all political persuasions to achieve shared positive outcomes in public policy.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:50 pm
If they lobby, they lobby. Doesn’t matter for whom or for what. They lobby and they have a ton of registered lobsters on the payroll. Why split hairs and deny it?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:50 pm
=== I don’t know why anyone takes the Illinois Policy Institute seriously … They are a joke and shouldn’t be taken seriously. ===
Even folks who might not take the IL Policy Institute seriously, as the IPI, might not know the difference if they read an (IPI-written) story that’s run on an independent news organization’s news pages and with a byline attribution of “Illinois News Service.” (That’s apparently happened in several cases mentioned in Cap Fax blog recently, in addition to these other situations involving columns that might be packaged with newspapers’ more opinion-ish sections.)
Without fuller disclosure and transparency, otherwise-discriminating readers wouldn’t be able to make the connection. Thus, three cheers for Rich’s suggestion as the very LEAST action that a news source should take:
=== So, if your newspaper is OK with running a lobbying outfit’s stuff, that’s cool. But perhaps it should be mentioned? ===
Comment by Linus Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:53 pm
My union, Local 150 opposed obamacare for the record.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 3:59 pm
=== IPI, as an Illinois think tank, has to engage with Illinois agencies and legislators to generate its work: studies and opinion pieces on Illinois state politics. ===
If in fact that is the nature and extent of their communications with legislators, then IPI people no more have to register as lobbyists than Statehouse reporters or academic researchers have to register.
The law is clear: lobbying is any communication “for the ultimate purpose of influencing any executive, legislative, or administrative action.”
Strictly gathering information is a whole different deal.
Comment by Raymond Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 4:07 pm
Kudos Rich
If no one peeks behind the curtain then OZ is all knowing and all powerful. Some may want to look into the legal difference between a con artist and a salesman.
Comment by Bemused Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 4:11 pm
Conservative Republican-
How about the virtual charter bill? that seems to me like one where some of the IPI’s registered lobbyists had a direct “commercial or business” interest.
Comment by Powell Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 4:12 pm
The IPI is a right wing PR and lobbying operation. Period. The idea that they have any interest whatsoever in unbiased research is laughable. They are funded by the same people who fund ALEC. Both outfits are re-engineering the Illinois GOP as a party of the far right. As such, it will become even more marginalized in this state. It is remarkable that no matter how unpopular Quinn gets, the Republicans still manage to lose elections.
Comment by Eugene Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 4:19 pm
All I have to say is damn they send out a lot of emails to many people. I wonder how big their email list is?
Comment by Hacks Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 4:20 pm
– I’d like to see Rich Miller identify where any of these IPI “lobbyists” in fact directly lobby on behalf of any commercial or business interest.–
You mean like the interests of their paymasters? Get real, dude. There’s no stigma to lobbying — just don’t pretend you’re in the Ivory Tower, above it all.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 4:21 pm
Also, in the category of trying to manipulate public perception, it’s hilarious that the IPI (screaming with a vengeance from the far, far right) has a “Director of Labor.”
More like the “Director of Bashing Labor and All That Workers Stand For.”
Comment by Raymond Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 4:31 pm
Great piece Rich. It’s one of many on IPI’s duplicitous nature. Frankly, when you talk to the IL GA members the general consensus is that IPI not their lobbyist efforts are taken seriously.
This is in fact just another ineffective front group of con men/woman who deceive donors by speaking to their collective ignorance of the political process and their individual ideology.
Other donors, like Rauner own groups like these in order for them to do their incoherent bidding.
For a group that is all about transparency one wonders why they are not transparent about their donor base…the old excuse of donor privacy and the law excludes them is just a cover up. The group and others like them are just shills making a lot of money to be self-adsorbed do nothings.!
Comment by Priceless! Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 4:37 pm
Rich, not to be critical, but I agree with CR’s point about the organizational requirement under Illinois’ lobbying and disclosure rules. I don’t know the answer, but you could just as easily list the registered lobbyists for unions or other groups in a similar way and find that other “interests” have the same number or greater of people who have to register for the privilege of communicating with lobbyists (especially people who slant toward the minority party’s interests and feel they have to “over-register” to keep on the far side of a gray line).
I’m not defending any of the other criticisms, but I’m not sure if they are any different from many other types of organizations.
Comment by Judge Cooked Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 4:52 pm
I meant communicating with “legistors” not “lobbyists” in the previous post. Sorry.
Comment by Judge Cooked Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 4:53 pm
When the lobster registration law was first passed, lobbyists registered their secretaries because they were concerned about communication issues. That’s no longer the case. A lobster is a lobster.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 4:59 pm
People like Kersey and tea party Republicans will make up anything just to get a political edge, and now they’re floundering, because they can’t spin their way out of the fact that these federal government crises are of their own creation. The public overwhelmingly does not believe in shutting down the government (and in one poll, defaulting) over Obamacare. The public overwhelmingly supports voting for a clean CR and raising the debt limit without strings attached.
Which party is not listening to the public and is not signing the clean CR and supporting a clean debt-limit increase?
The only reason conservatives bring this up is to attack Obamacare. Republicans are definitely not the friends of organized labor. Organized labor, no matter what happens with Obamacare, in my opinion will never realign with conservatives unless they dump the tea party and elect more moderates. In the Ike era, the GOP was favorable to unions. Now there’s a hatred of unions among many Republicans.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 5:07 pm
Todd 3:59 your union opposed Obama care but supported with thousands of dollars Mitch Daniels (read his book sometime) and now 150 supports gov candidate Dillard with thousands of dollars guess your “leaders” don’t know national GOP agenda or are just so flush with members money for PAC they can just play the game ?
Comment by railrat Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 5:24 pm
While they work on changing the union health plans, they should see about allowing the subsidy for state plans. TRS and SURS for example charge over $1000 PER DEPENDANT. So a family of 3 pays close to $2500 per month even with the state paying some of the retiree cost.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 6:02 pm
Interesting that part of what the AFL CIO criticized about Obamacare, was that it wasn’t broad enough, and not available to enough employers. They, in some senses, want it more, not less.
Hardly what the right-wing advocates(including IPI) mean for us to understand when they say “even the unions are against it.”
If the IPI claims their staff is just information gathering for research purposes, and not trying to convince legislators to vote a certain way on specific bills, then they need to retrain their staff and better manage their paid representatives.
For them to claim they are “reporting” like we expect the press to do, is also misleading.
At least the Civic Committee, and Civic Federation are clear about what they are doing, and don’t try to pretend they are some sort of research institute.
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 6:14 pm
The same template can be applied to the BGA lobbyists too
For decades the media has universally left the impression lobbyist are thieves and scoundrels Just like campaign donations are bribes and extortion payments
Hard to think it is time to start drawing. distinctions.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 6:17 pm
IPI has lobbied for or against a lot of issues over the past few years — for virtual charters, against Medicaid expansion, for vouchers, for pension reform (and even the end of pensions), etc.
For anyone to claim that IPI doesn’t actual lobby, and only registers because of IL’s strict laws, is either lying or completely clueless about what IPI does.
Comment by dave Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 6:29 pm
- Anon - Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 6:02 pm:
$2500 a month for a family of 3? Can’t speak for TRS (do they even offer subsidized health care?) but SURS is no where near that much. The rates are published and easily verifiable. You are wrong. It’s 2% of annuity for retiree and $107 per dependent.
Comment by Old and In The Way Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 6:31 pm
The real Paul Kersey was no wimp and was fronting for nothing but Justice. (DW , DW II , DW III, …)
Comment by x ace Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 7:04 pm
Our beloved IPI buddy, John Tillman, is on “Chicago Tonight.” For as much odium as he has toward President Obama’s positions in the CR/debt ceiling crises, he admitted that it’s a terrible idea to default over trying to get rid of Obamacare. This sentiment also may be forming among the very people who fund the tea party, like the Koch brothers and Heritage Foundation. Entertaining the notion of defaulting and damaging the global economy over a law that withstood over 40 repeal attempts, a presidential election and a SCOTUS ruling is hopefully scaring some wealthy conservatives. The tea party monster they nurtured might turn on them.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 7:37 pm
@Old And In The Way-Look at CIP (College Insurance Plan) for retirees of community colleges covered by SURS. Retiree age 26-64 $270.49, dependents age 26-64 $1081.96 EACH.
Wait-it gets worse! 65 or older if not Medicare primary, the cost goes up to $431.11 for the retiree and $1724.44 for a dependent.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 11:05 pm
@Old and In The Way-I think you were looking at the rate for STATE employees also covered by SURS, you are lucky if you are under that group, they have a much better rate.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 11:28 pm
I usually like what Sweeny has to say and agree with Abdon too. So this should be a tough call. But it isn’t.
Reeder *was* a journalist as was Abdon, but no more. They are both advocates now, free to question eaxh others credibility as much as they like.
And frankly, when “the media” decides that they are beyond reproach, we are all doomed. In fact, Sweeny should thank government reproach for his byline. Prior to the Civil War, there were no bylines. Journalists published anonymously, which meant they could not be held accountable for their reporting.
In a democracy, no authority can be beyond question. If “journalists” want to avoid reproach, just do your jobs. If someone objects to solid facts, it will only draw attention to them.
Unless I am mistaken, the IPI once argued that instead of taxing cigarettes, we should pay people to smoke because when people drop dead at an early age from cancer, it saves Medicare and Social Security money in the long run. If that isn’t reason enough to dismiss their “policy” recommendations, even the Almighty can’t save journalism from itself. Much better argument than the Koch brothers.
Comment by Juvenal Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 7:36 am
Let’s not forget IPI once called the Personal Property Replacement Tax receipts local governments get a “subsidy” and proposed eliminating them as a way to balance the budget.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 10:04 am