9 Comments - Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 8, 05 @ 9:22 am: Wonder when the IL Civil Justice League will join the growing national interest in who funds the US Chamber of Commerce? ICJL does not seem to interested in which collections of medical butchers, polluters and gun makers are quietly throwing around millions to back their mope candidates. Speaking of money, circle your calendars for March 1 –that’s the date that must be on the postmark for the next, improverished IL Medical Society & InsuranceCo report on how much cash they tossed to their officers and directors. Yes, even those poor embattled docs that appeared in SPI recently knock down about 20K. Hmmm. fd C - Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 8, 05 @ 9:23 am: Wonder when the IL Civil Justice League will join the growing national interest in who funds the US Chamber of Commerce? ICJL does not seem to interested in which collections of medical butchers, polluters and gun makers are quietly throwing around millions to back their mope candidates. Speaking of money, circle your calendars for March 1 –that’s the date that must be on the postmark for the next, improverished IL Medical Society & InsuranceCo report on how much cash they tossed to their officers and directors. Yes, even those poor embattled docs that appeared in SPI recently knock down about 20K. Hmmm. fd C - Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 8, 05 @ 10:34 am: ICJL’s assertions are the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard! They claim that ICPR wants to preserve the status quo and trial lawyer advantage? The status quo favors the Chamber of Commerce and ICJL as the last Supreme Court race can attest to. ICPR’s reforms will restrict Trial Lawyers and COC members alike! - Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 8, 05 @ 12:55 pm: Campaign for Political Reform has a good mission, but a group that preaches disclosure should have known better than to partner up with more biased groups. Have you seen the TV commercial against tort reform and President Bush, sponsored by U.S. Action? They are the national Citizen Action coalition. U.S. Action’s bias in favor of the trial lawyers is very clear. Campaign for Political for Reform and Citizen Action are documented as partners on Justice at Stake, a voter education program. Funny, the article that I read in the Belleville News-Democrat this morning says Schaafsma “absolutely divorced herself” from Citizen Action. “There was nothing coordinated going on,” Schaafsma said. However (again), their own documentation shows that Citizen Action and Campaign for Political Reform were working together (see “Illinois” on Page 2). But, she says they’re “divorced”. How did they become “partners” in the project if they weren’t coordinating anything? “Disclosure” is the key word here. Campaign for Political Reform preaches disclosure. If they are partnering with organizations with obvious slant, they should just disclose it. If they want to be “independent”, maybe they should shed their “partners” and be “independent”. You can’t have it both ways. Why would a group that’s purpose is to reduce the influence of special-interest money partner with a special interest? There is only ONE degree of separation between Campaign for Political Reform and Citizen Action, and their collaboration of “Justice at Stake” is proof. Citizen Action’s PAC made in-kind donations to the Maag campaign. Now, we’re at two degrees. Can Justice at Stake truly be considered “independent” if one of it’s founders (Citizen Action) has already taken sides? Perhaps the Campaign for Political Reform should have looked into Citizen Action and U.S. Action’s agendas before partnering up with them. Oh, by the way, Citizen Action just had a FIELD OFFICE for the Maag campaign stacked with volunteers that Citizen Action’s PAC paid. I guess “Spotcheck” missed these donations… Citizen Action Party/IL Progressive Action Project 28 E Jackson Blvd Ste 605 Chicago, IL 60604-2291 In-Kind Contribution $17,248.01 on 11/4/2004 Descrip: Field workers Vendor: Sharon Smith Ministries Citizen Action Party/IL Progressive Action Project 28 E Jackson Blvd Ste 605 Chicago, IL 60604-2291 In-Kind Contribution $600.00 on 11/4/2004 Descrip: Field office The connection between the Campaign for Political Reform, Citizen Action, and Justice at Stake was one degree too many not to have disclosed. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 8, 05 @ 8:11 pm: The last comment was amazing! And by amazing, I mean delusional. And by delusional, I mean the commenter has a thin grasp of reality. The issue is whether ICPR, not Citizen Action, is a front group. Just because two groups join the same coalition on an issue does not make one a front group for the other. If that’s the standard, imagine the connections we can draw for ICJL. The entire rant consists of describing Citizen Action’s activities. The only connection between Citizen Action and ICPR that the commenter points out is their activities on the Justice at Stake Coalition. One of the main national partners of Justice at Stake is the American Bar Association. So, is the ABA in bed with Citizen Action? Can every single political viewpoint of Citizen Action be attributed to the ABA (or the National Center for Courts, e.g.)? This kind of guilt by coalition association is worthy of 1950s McCarthyism. Shame. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 9, 05 @ 12:33 pm: I always find it interesting when people can’t respond any better than “that’s ridiculous” or “it’s a conspiracy” or even better, “it’s delusional.” It’s always easier to discredit than to explain. I looked at the study. I think ICJL’s points are very valid. One ICPR employee worked for all three organizations that put this Justice at Stake coalition together? Perhaps ICPR should just explain why they hired someone that was involved with more biased groups to be their spokesperson for judicial campaigns? It does look suspicious, especially if the person was actively involved in negotiating between the campaigns. Would unions have a problem with labor negotiations if an arbitrator was a former CEO? Would management be leery if the arbitrator was a former union lobbyist? I’d like to know more about what ICPR and Justice at Stake was advertising about during the campaign. Their website says they are for a taxpayer funded election guide. Who will write this proposed guide? Only Democrats are in power in Springfield right now. The online voter guide linked on the ICPR and Justice at Stake websites seems to be nonpartisan, but I don’t know if our tax dollars should be used to fund any of this stuff. Until this past court campaign, I was never very informed about these types of races. I appreciated the attention the supreme court race got, although I wasn’t wild about the criminal ads. All of the political pundits seem very critical of this past court campaign, even when the public was more informed than ever before. In the past, only lawyers seemed interested in these types of campaigns. Normal voters never seemed to care. The lack of attention has left Southern Illinois scrambling for doctors. We have too many lawsuits filed here. I looked at the movie website and it looks like everyone from ICPR to the bar association is against Republicans and against Karmeier. Todays newspaper says that the movie does nothing but criticize one side in the lawsuit debate. I don’t see the movie criticizing the money that the lawyers put into the campaign. It was millions of dollars. I don’t see people like ICPR criticizing lawyers either. That alone is enough for me to be suspicious. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 9, 05 @ 12:59 pm: If you haven’t seen ICPR criticizing contributions from lawyers, then you haven’t looked. - Homer Simpson - Thursday, Feb 10, 05 @ 7:20 pm: First of all, some folks here also think that the ICPR has WMD. Let’s move beyond wild accusations and uber-conspiracy theories. The ICPR and Citizen Action both oppose third party contributions to judicial campaigns. Hell, citizen action would like to publicly finance every campaign. Anyone who argues that gives democrats a big advantage believes that the only way the GOP can win is if elections can be bought. I don’t believe that, but I think that the argument that public financing/spending limits give incumbents a big advantage is more compelling. That said, I’m much more interested in why the ICJL, which everyone admits is a front group, feels the need to trash this bipartisan effort. Where’s the media to cry foul when the wrench is calling everybody else a tool? - Ed Murnane - Friday, Feb 11, 05 @ 8:17 am: ICJL is a front for whom? We’ve never hidden our membership or supporters, who include big and small businesses (including companies that employ thousands of Illinois residents), doctors, hospitals, local governments, lawyers and lots of individuals. We are bi-partisan/non-partisan also. In judicial races, we’ve supported Justices McMorrow (D) and Fitzgerald (D) plus more than two dozen Democrats seeking appellate or circuit court seats in Illinois. We’ve also supported Republicans for judge, although not as many as Democrats. We’re not a front group for anyone and haven’t been since our creation — quite transparent — in 1993. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.