Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Tribune uncovers dubious grant program; Bernie lays out questionable contribution
Posted in:
* Before we take a look at my syndicated newspaper column, I should point out that the anti con-con group “Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution” has filed its campaign finance report this morning. So far, they’ve reported $250,000 in contributions, including $75,000 from an apparently unregistered outfit called the Illinois Coalition for Jobs Growth and Prosperity PAC. [Several searches of the Board of Elections website came up empty, but somebody in comments provided a state committee number. Turns out, $50,000 of its cash came from AT&T and the rest came from the coalition itself]…
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company: $50,000
U.A.W. Illinois State CAP Council: $10,000
Illinois AFL-CIO: $40,000
Illinois Coalition for Jobs Growth and Prosperity PAC: $75,000
Illinois Federation of Teachers COPE: $25,000
Illinois Trial Lawyers Assn. PAC: $25,000
IPACE (IEA): $25,000
* Now, on to my column…
So, the fox says to the farmer, “Hey, don’t fix the hen-house door, just buy more chickens.”
That’s pretty much the same advice that you, as Illinois voters, are about to be spoon fed.
Big business, big labor and some “good government” groups have teamed up to urge a “No” vote this November on the Constitutional Convention ballot question. They’re planning to spend $3 million on TV and other advertising.
Illinois voters are given a choice every twenty years about whether to call a “con-con,” and in 1988 the ballot question was defeated.
The entire Illinois establishment was opposed to a constitutional convention back then, including most newspapers. But 2008 is a whole lot different than 1988, when the political world was pretty stable here and most things were on track.
“A mess” hardly begins to describe our current state political situation. Some have suggested that voters might be so fed up with our political disaster that they will vote for a constitutional convention with the hope that something - anything - might change.
It was obvious during a conference call with reporters last week that “fear and loathing” will be the message of the “No” campaign.
“If you think things are bad now, just wait until the same people who have screwed up our government get their hands on the constitution,” sums it up pretty well. The opponents did their very best to make the claim that the same people who are responsible for the gridlock and political warfare in Springfield will be the ones who will control a constitutional convention.
However, all the powers that be in this state oppose a convention. Why? Because they know they may not be able to control it. They fear the controls that ordinary citizens running as convention delegates might attempt to put on their power. And they believe that the voters, who will have the final say over every single proposed revision or amendment, are not to be trusted. It’s no coincidence that the groups providing most of the cash for the “No” campaign are also allied with the most powerful politicians in Illinois.
The well-funded convention opposition will likely do anything to scare you away from voting “Yes.” They claimed last week, for instance, that a convention will cost taxpayers $100 million. That’s far more than a recent estimate by a legislative agency, but it has a nice, round, scary ring to it, so that’s what we’ll be hearing over and over again.
And the opposition’s claim that all our problems are political, not structural, is simply ludicrous. “It’s the politicians, not the constitution, that are at fault,” said the executive director of the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution, which is fronting for the interest groups.
I do not understand how the opponents can claim with a straight face that even though a tiny number of people have accumulated an enormous amount of power under this Constitution - the House Speaker, Senate President and governor - all we have to do is just elect new people and all our woes will suddenly disappear.
I’ve been around just since 1990, but only a small handful of legislators remain in office who were there when I first started reporting on Illinois politics. Rod Blagojevich was still chasing ambulances for Eddie Vrdolyak’s law firm back then. The 27-year old state Rep. Aaron Schock was barely in grade school.
Lots and lots of new people have been elected since 1990. Lots of good people, even. I would venture to say that the General Assembly as a whole has a brighter, more diverse and thoughtful membership now than in the old days. But the power concentration problems have only gotten worse. Our constitution simply allows too much power to be concentrated in too few hands.
Also, the legislative leaders and the governor control the drawing of the legislative district maps so tightly that it’s unbelievably difficult to defeat an incumbent. The only way to do it is with money supplied by those leaders, who get their campaign funds from the very people who are now saying that this mess is purely the fault of politicians, not the constitution.
The people arguing against change have been our political system’s greatest enablers, and now the fox tells us that the broken hen-house door is fine and what we ought to do is buy more chickens.
Better to just fix the door.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 8:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Tribune uncovers dubious grant program; Bernie lays out questionable contribution
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The most interesting thing to me is the convention itself is just a review of the current constitution with the mechnism in place to possibly change it. The wanring klaxons should sound through the State when the powers that be are opposed to having thier power reviewed. That the anti- con-con people have to lie about who would be invovled and the cost in order to get their message, should be the biggest wanring of all. If they can not rely on the truth to persuade us, then they are obviously tryign to shore up a damaged process. In the end, the anti-con-con people are trying desperatly to keep the citizens from paying attention to the man behind the curtain. The citizens need to take note of who and what the all powerful oz really is, and have a con-con to strip him of his power.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 8:38 am
Isn’t Illinois Coalition for Jobs, Growth and Prosperity just Ron Gidwitz?
Comment by problem Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 8:39 am
====And they believe that the voters, who will have the final say over every single proposed revision or amendment, are not to be trusted. ====
I feel the same about them. So, there…. We’re even.
Comment by The 'Broken Heart' of Rogers Park Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 8:41 am
Is there an organized group who is in favor of the con-con and will they be campaigning for it? Should the door be fixed or just replace it?
Comment by Dan S, a voter and Cubs Fan Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 8:49 am
A republic only works when the power is derived from the people. Our current government has drifted too far from that principal. I voted for a con-con in 1988 and plan on doing so again. I believe a review of government practices every 20 years is essential to maintaining control of the people over their government.
Comment by OldCoyote Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 8:53 am
Rich…are you really opposed to a Con Con for personal reasons (i.e. you support changes to the Constitution) or because it would be a boon for Capitol Fax?!!!!!!!
Comment by 4% Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 8:58 am
Rich -
The Jobs Coalition is a registered entity and has been for years. State PAC number is 8678.
Your information is incorrect. Naughty, naughty!!
Comment by False Assertion Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:04 am
Who got the ball rolling on this? Who has the most to lose? I would think the legislative leaders. Are they involved?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:08 am
I learned, or was taught, in Political Science 101 that the primary directive of ANY government is to keep itself in power. With that in mind, there should be no surprise that opposition concerning a constitutional convention should come from those in power. My deep-seated cynicism tells me,however, that we will get fooled again.
Comment by anon Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:10 am
===Rich…are you really opposed to a Con Con for personal reasons (i.e. you support changes to the Constitution) or because it would be a boon for Capitol Fax?!!!!!!!===
Next person who makes that assertion is gonna get a swift kick in the pants. You think I can’t read your IP address?
I seriously doubt the excruciatingly boring day to day deliberations of a con-con would mean anything to my business except added costs for coverage.
So, the answer is it’s not about me.
When it is about me, I always make it clear, like my intense desire for a third term for Rod Blagojevich.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:10 am
I don’t mind fixing the door. I just hate to see the whole barn torn down and replaced by something worse.
Comment by Bill Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:11 am
==like my intense desire for a third term for Rod Blagojevich.==
YES!!!I’ve always said you had the best interests of the real people at heart!
Comment by Bill Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:13 am
Great column, Rich! 100 percent on the money. We have a democracy in name only in Illinois. With special interest money and control of a single tiny sliver of the electorate (their home districts), legislative leaders can dictate everything. I agree there are a lot of thoughtful, bright legislators. But they’re still SHEEP–all of them-in the current system.
Comment by Chicago Guy Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:22 am
My biggest fear on this issue is that the vast majority of voters will be as ignorant on this as they were when voting to put Blago into a second term. That’s why I’ll be e-mailing your article to everyone in my inbox, urging them to pass it on and spread the good word. I get the sinking feeling that it will be an uphill battle, with the powers that be throwing big $$$ at their “no” campaign.
Comment by BigDog Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:29 am
Speaking as a Republican, I would love to see a con con held and some pro-conservative/Republican-like structural reforms made.
The problem is I see no realistic way to get to that end.
There really is no GOP in Illinois. The State Party is a joke. Republicans are still losing ground. Illinois is getting Bluer by the day.
So as 2 convention delegates would come from each state senate district, simple math says a big majority of any con con delegation is going to be pro-Dem, pro-teachers union, pro-trial lawyer, etc.
Things are bad, but they could easily get worse. The same forces that control Springpatch now would also control any con con.
Wishful thinking is fun sometimes, but we’re stuck with reality.
Comment by GOP'er Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:46 am
It’s really funny you say the voters are about to be “spoon fed” the garbage from special interests. I’m writing my own opinion piece for the Kankakee Daily Journal and I used the phrase “force fed”.
Comment by K to the 3 Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:47 am
You know a good QotD would be for the people who are pro-con-con or leaning con-con to detail what specific changes they would like a con-con to produce. Certainly everyone can agree that our situation is and has been difficult for the last few years but are those difficulties due to personality or structure? And if it’s structure, what changes would be better?
Comment by Anon Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:50 am
===You know a good QotD would be for the people who are pro-con-con or leaning con-con to detail what specific changes they would like a con-con to produce.===
Anon, we’ve done that already, and we’ll do it again. I’ve also done it more than a few times.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 9:59 am
For example, an earlier commenter suggested that he/she would like to see more Republican platform positions solidified in the Constitution but recognized the political reality that this state leans blue and that his/her wish is unlikely.
Our state Constitution mandates a flat income tax, which is a position generically favored by the Republicans/right and generically opposed by the Democrats/left with some exceptions on each side. I would say it’s possibile to likely that this particular part of the Constitution would receieve considerable debate and could be changed during a con-con. If changed, that policy would almost certainly move leftward. Would the conservatives who are pro-con-con be willing to risk these policy changes in the document in order to have the con-con?
Would there be an all-out war on the abortion issue?
It’s very likely that recall would be debated and a more clear description of impeachment proceedings would be considered, issues that I’m sure are very popular among commenters here, but what about a carte blanche openening of the rest of the hot-button political issues?
I think it’s a serious question with a lot of risk and it’s certainly possible that there could be some reward. But I do think there’s well-meaning people who fear the risk, not necessarily out of drive to the bottom fearmongering campaign, but out of legitimate concern for what a con-con might produce that would then be locked in for another 20 years if not more.
Comment by Anon Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 10:02 am
Again, anon, pick a name.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 10:04 am
Great article, Mr. Miller. The formation of a well-funded, paradoxically-named con-con opposition group speaks volumes about the need for the con-con.
Look at the strange bedfellows so far: State Farm, trial lawyers, and unions. It will be interesting to see who else signs up. And it also shows that, although GOP’er is probably right that there would be a Dem tilt to the con-con, the muscle in the state on both sides doesn’t want it. Can’t have too much democracy around here!
Comment by Lefty Lefty Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 10:19 am
Rich, the unions are never going to go for it. They are afraid of losing their pensions. I do believe that we need to make some adjustments but a con con could turn into a nightmare with the way politics is in Ill. We open up the constitution and the ignorant masses in Ill. could appoint Daley, Blago or Stroger king. Lets face it we as voters are doing a poor job and have the goverment we deserve.
Comment by fed up Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 10:21 am
Great article! I am going to keep it and pass it along closer to the election. I couldn’t agree with it more!
Comment by downstateyp Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 10:23 am
It’s pretty obvious why these groups would oppose a con-con. Insurance regulations in IL are far less restrictive than they are in 48 other states. A con-con could possibly jeopardize the state pension system, hence the union opposition. And IL trial lawyers may face tougher tort reform laws.
It will be interesting to see how many more interest groups join this alliance.
Comment by Undercover Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 10:25 am
fedup, kindly remove your unsightly tinfoil hat. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 10:29 am
Its not going to make me popular to say it, but I’ve thought long and hard about some of the same bogeymen being raised about a Constitutional convention, and I just don’t see them.
Progressives have had a litany of doomsday scenerios laid out before them. But Illinois is undeniably more liberal than it was in 1971 when this Constitution was laid out.
Unions have been told the Constitution could be stripped of protections for public pensions. I think its far more likely that those protections will be expanded to include PRIVATE employees.
Gay rights groups have been told that the Constitution could be amended to ban gay marriage. I think its far more likely that a sweeping Equal Rights Ammendment will be adopted.
We will certainly get clarification of the provision requiring the State to provide the majority of support for local schools, easing the burden on local property taxes.
I think a progressive income tax is highly possible, and a change in the formula linking corporate income taxes to the individual income tax rate is highly probable.
Affordable access to quality health care WILL be established as a Constitutional right.
In short, given the sea change in Illinois politics over the last four decades, I can understand why Big Business and ultra-conservatives fear a Constitutional convention. What I can’t understand is why anyone else is standing with them.
Democrats hold every statewide office and rock-solid majorities in the General Assembly. Just who do you think is going to be sending delegates to the Constitutional Convention?
Democrats should be salivating over the chance to rewrite the Constitution.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 10:55 am
Amen YDD.
Comment by Kevin Fanning Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 10:58 am
Given their obvious inablity to govern rationally and responsibly, the” powere that be’ have “reson to be afraid, be very afraid” that their plutocracy might be overturned.
Illinois government is broken and needs to be fixed. The general public interest has not been served well in recent years.
Con-Con seems about the only alternative availiable to responsible citizens interested in changing the status quo,when elected officials and representatives repeatedly neglect to discharge their duties honestly and effectively because of political and ego conflicts in Springfield.
Comment by Captain America Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 11:09 am
remember that opponents are calling this a leadership crisis, not a constitutional crisis…the stakes are high for Con Con because Rod, Emil, and Rickey won’t bring recall to the Senate floor, cuz they’d all be out on their collective behinds…I’m with Rich on this one…there’s more than one way to skin a greasy pole cat…or two…or three…whatever!
Comment by Anonymous45 Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 11:58 am
Great Column!
Comment by Speaking At Will Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 12:07 pm
The opposition says it will cost $ 100 million dollars for Con-Con. Truth of the matter is our current form of government is wasting way more than this due to total incompetance. Whenever we hear ” vote the rascals out ” the problem is that the GOP and Dems just keep offering up the same kinds of ” rascals “. As Rich points out it should make all of us squirm a bit when the ” coalition of the willing ” who are against Con-Con are all power brokers on both sides of the politcal fence !
Comment by bluedog demo Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 12:27 pm
Does anyone really believe that the people who would end up being in charge of re-writing our constitution would somehow NOT be the same people who have gotten us into this mess?
Comment by Inquisitor Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 12:45 pm
Inquisitor, you should know.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 12:47 pm
“People shouldn’t be afraid of their government… government should be afraid of its people.”
Trouble is, as evidenced by this membership list, big corporate interests, pulling strings, ARE the government now. The suits that show up in Springfield to press the buttons are merely puppets.
Comment by V Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 12:53 pm
V you remind me of Pat Quinn…government by the people for the people…not the insiders, and fat cats…
Comment by Anonymous45 Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 1:36 pm
I’m not sure about this group being smarter.
Pat Quinn’s cutback amendment did more to hurt the General Assembly than anything. Many of the minority party members were some of the best and brightest in the House.
It is time for change. I’m voting yes for ConCon.
Comment by decaturvoter Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 1:48 pm
YDD,
Wait ’til Mad-again finds out you are talking up a con con. No more Alpo for you, dude!
Comment by Bill Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 1:48 pm
decaturvoter, I think the cutback had a lot to do with the current power structure. Rich noted the ever tighter map-making for districts. The multi-member, multi-party districts put less premium on gerrymandering than the single member districts that replaced them. The 1970 Constitution could not have anticipated the cutback amendment. A Con Con would allow the state to finally reconcile 1970 with 1980.
Comment by muon Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 2:39 pm
The anti Con-Con interests might be wise to field a handful of good government amendments, showing that a Con-Con is not necessary even if the current version is not a perfect document. Our current Constitution has been amended numerous times since 1970. Nothing wrong with fine tuning, rather than risking the entire framework.
Comment by Capitol View Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 3:01 pm
this is a good conversation on the cutback, and consolidation of power in the legislature-anyone else gonna chime in? Did the constitution rewrite in ‘70 essentially stay the same with the legislature’s size shrinking by over 2/3?
Comment by Anonymous45 Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 3:03 pm
As a co-founder of the pro con-con group, I can tell you we are putting out what changes we’d like to see. We’ve even written a book, Illinois Deserves Better that lays it out.
We will speak anytime anywhere in the state to discuss it with the voters.
Comment by John Bambenek Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 3:13 pm
Bottom line: how much is a con-con going to cost me as a taxpayer over the next 20 years? Not to pay for the convention itself, but for all the changes.
I won’t support a con-con until someone answer that question. I refuse to purchase an item or sign a contract unless I know how much it is going to cost me. Giving anyone permission to charge you carte blanche for an item is bad business.
I have an idea how much the current constitution will cost me, so I say stick with that.
Comment by Leroy Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 5:05 pm
No one can answer that question… I can’t tell you precisely what a con-con will produce and what the financial impact will be. I *CAN* tell you what I want to see, but that’s it. And what I want to see are changes to increase citizen empowerment and if the citizens want, say, lower taxes, they will have the means to pursue that beyond having to buy Madigan or Jones.
Comment by John Bambenek Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 5:07 pm
Here’s what I’d like the pro con-con people to tell me: how will it be structured? Will the current state legislators appoint themselves to the con-con committee, or will they schedule elections where the party hacks can run their own people? Will Blagojevich use his amendatory veto to protect his own interests? Will we go through the whole tedious and expensive process only to come up with a constitution that gets voted down?
Let’s face it: no one in Springfield gives a damn about the voters. Why would they look out for us when they set the terms of a con-con, assuming that they even can set the terms? These are people who have not been able to pass a budget in a timely fashion two years running.
I think the U.S. attorney will be taking care of Blagojevich soon enough anyway.
Comment by Anita Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 6:24 pm
Capitol View, You raise a reasonable suggestion that structural problems could be addressed through the regular amendment process. Unfortunately the evidence says that has broken as well. From 1974 until 1998 there were 17 amendments put before the voters. Since then there have been none! This year there were a number of efforts to place questions on the ballot before the May 4 deadline but all were thwarted in one chamber or the other.
Comment by muon Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 6:53 pm
Anita, There’s no need to fear that the legislators will appoint themselves or that the Gov will somehow amend the work of a Con Con. The Constitution dictates that the delegates must be elected directly, two per Senate district. Any proposals from the Con Con go directly to the voters, neither the GA nor the Gov have the power to alter any amendment questions.
Comment by muon Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 7:00 pm
To reiterate what has already been said, a convention is an *independent* body. What they decide is it and Blagojevich can’t do anything about it. The delegates need to be elected, period. (The anti-concon people keep floating the rumor that the General Assembly COULD appoint the delegates, but the Constitution is crystal clear and unambigious on this point).
In 1968, when no restrictions on legislative double-dipped or ethics rules existed, only 2 delegates were legislators. This time, the legislative article prohibits legislators from drawing two paychecks simultaenously and ethics law has additional prohibitions as well.
Comment by John Bambenek Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 10:15 pm
Leroy, you WILL get a chance to “read the contract” produced by a con-con because the VOTERS have to approve it — every single word of it — before it takes effect! Particularly controversial provisions can be voted on separately from the main body of the constitution; I believe this was done in 1970. The voters do not have to accept what the convention produces. I believe there was also a full-fledged con-con in 1920 or 1921, but the document it produced was voted down in 1922 and never took effect.
Comment by Bookworm Monday, Jul 21, 08 @ 10:40 pm
Muon,
Here’s what the constitution says about a con-con:
“The General Assembly, at the session following
approval by the electors, by law shall provide for the Convention and for the election of two delegates from each Legislative District; designate the time and place of the Convention’s first meeting which shall be within three months
after the election of delegates; fix and provide for the pay of delegates and officers; and provide for expenses necessarily incurred by the Convention.”
I would intepret that to mean that the General Assembly can determine who is qualified to run, and that there is plenty that they can screw up in the meantime. I would certainly not expect that this means “qualified people with no party axes to grind and who will protect equal rights and give us all health insurance!” will be the candidates.
Again, these are people who have proven themselves incapable of the most basic governance. The only election that matters is the one where we can throw them all out.
Comment by Anita Tuesday, Jul 22, 08 @ 6:32 am