32 Comments - Team Sleep - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 10:09 am: Yeah, McQueary is dead on. While it’s the right of super-groups like the IFT, the state COC, the IMA, the IEA, the IADA, the insert-acronym-here, etc., it’s our right as voters and taxpayers to demand a new set of rules and accountability ever 30-40 years. Rich, I know you’re selling ads, but the IFT add on the mid-to-right section of the page cracks me up. The IFT claims nothing will get done if a con-con must be convened? What about now? What’s getting done this week? Or during the next special session? Or the veto session week? The gridlock in Springfield and D.C. is silly. - Wacker Drive - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 10:10 am: Hope Blagojevich isn’t invited to the Con Con, that would be a huge mistake for generations to come. - Just Observing - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 10:12 am: Kristen’s column is way off. She says “a constitutional convention is one of very few tools Illinois voters can employ to be heard.” Uh no, there are countless ways voters can be heard, most notably in a semi-regular event called voting. All the initiatives Kristen discusses, such as a recall ammendment and term limits (which are both terrible ideas) can be implemented without a con-con. It is not the constitution itself that is a barrier to change — it is the voters themselves who get the government they deserve. I don’t like Rod Blagojevich, Todd Stroger, and countless other elected officials, but if voters are stupid enough to continue to vote them in then whose fault is it really? - Captain Flume - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 10:16 am: I wish legislative scholarships were banned. They are burden directly on the universities involved and therefore a burden on all the taxpayers of the state, not just those in the legislators’ districts. Legislators seem to regard these scholarships as a divine right, or as a socially responsible activity. If a legislator feels that strongly about the scholarships, let him or her pay for it out of her/his own money or campiagn funds. Why put these “gifts” on the backs of taxpayers? - wordslinger - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 10:21 am: Let’s not forget redistricting. A California or Iowa plan would create real competition in districts across the state and loosen the chokehold of the Four Tops. I’m not sure the electorate knows how wildly gerrymandered districts are to provide eternal security for incumbents. - VanillaMan - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 10:28 am: To those of us who have seen our votes for change laughed at by a self-serving inbred group of politicians - To those of us who have seen years wasted in petty personal quabbles by a self-serving inbred group of politicians - To those of us who have witnessed callous disregard to democracy by the crowning of undeserving children of a self-serving inbred group of politicians - To those of us who have witnessed multi-billion dollar deals decided by these same quabbling ninnies - To those of us who watch children fearfully attend rotting public schools because reforming them would upend political connections - To those of us who remember when Illinois was a booming state of economic growth - To those of us who believe in real campaign reform and ethical, transparent government - To those of us whose wages fund a bureaucratic nightmare of overlapping governments engorged on waste and corruption - We have a chance to be heard. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do our civic duty. We have a moment to demand accountability from these boorish clowns. We have no choice because they have given us no other choices. Thanks to our constitutional right, this November we can pull the fire alarm that calls in a new group of decision makers to re-evaluate and address the collapsing of state government and give us a fresh start. Our government is bankrupt in ideas, leadership, fiscal accountability and ethics. It is time for voters to file for it’s bankrupsy and demand protection from it’s disasters. We can do no worse than what we have right now. Vote YES to the Constitutiona Convention this November Our families, neighbors and communities need for us to do our civic duty to clean up Illinois government! - GOP'er - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 10:32 am: Step down Mike Boland. If your self-serving state welfare program for your well-off friends isn’t criminal, it should be. - Good point - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 10:38 am: “Just observing” great point! Con Con proponents seem to think that the voters will all of a sudden elect entirely different people to a con con then wh they have been electing to the General Assembly. If the best candidate does not win now in these legislative races what makes them think they will for delegate to a con con? Voters have the power now, we do not have to re-write the play book just change the coaches. - VanillaMan - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 10:55 am: ==Con Con proponents seem to think that the voters will all of a sudden elect entirely different people to a con con then wh they have been electing to the General Assembly.== No, it isn’t a matter of “thinking”, it is a matter of knowing. The last constitutional convention and this one will not allow currently elected office holders from drawing their paychecks if they run and are elected to the convention. So if you think the guys and gals running the GA will just run the CC - you haven’t done your homework! - cermak_rd - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 11:07 am: Right, so they can’t get their minions on the ballot in their stead. - The Doc - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 11:15 am: For all those against a con-con with the claim that the election cycle is the sole manner in which we can hold government accountable, you do not have history on your side. The process is flawed because of gerrymandering, and a con-con is the most effective means of shutting down this ridiculous practice. - steve schnorf - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 11:17 am: VM, once in a lifetime may be a bit of hyperbole, non that hyperbole is unheard of on here. As to Bost, isn’t tuition to U of I only about $11,000? If she’s giving to buy a scholarship, the math doesn’t work. Maybe she actually supports Bost, huh. Or maybe she dislikes his opponents. Of course, she could be buying a scholarship on awfully bad terms, i guess. - Just Observing - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 11:32 am: Ha… Steve.. I was thinking the same thing. “Once in a life time” is quite a stretch — especially when it is on the ballot every 20 years. - steve schnorf - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 11:41 am: And can be called at any time in between - Political observer - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 11:47 am: Steve, Mike Boland gave the contributor’s daughter four years worth of scholarships — not just one. - Ghost - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 12:38 pm: We need a con-con. Every argument about it failing so we shoudl not do it contains a complete and critical flaw, we automatically fail every convention we never convene. If we convene it, and all the doomsayers are right, we are out nothing. No new consitution. But suppose the doomsayers have it wrong. SUppose we get good people, come up with good ideas, and improve the system. Then we are all ahead of the game. Thus with a con-con we have the chance to do better. Since any change must be approved by all the voters it turly gives the voters to set standards, such as how much power a senate presidnet has; who gets to decide appointments to committes, whetehr elected ooficials should be recalled, the standards for indepednet and third party canidates to run on a ballot etc etc. - DaveChgo - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 12:53 pm: I couldn’t agree with Kristin more. It’s not just bad actors, the system itself is broken. I hope you don’t mind Rich, but here’s a link to the pro Con-Con column I wrote for Huff Post Chicago: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-lundy/con-con-yes_b_118810.html - The Doc - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 12:56 pm: On a somewhat related note, I’m a bit curious why the McCain campaign hasn’t pointed out the fact that Obama’s chief strategists’ firm is the driving force behind the campaign to quash a con-con. Someone - anyone - needs to take Axelrod to the mat, especially since the GOP ticket has been waxing poetic about reform in recent days. - Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 12:58 pm: ===I’m a bit curious why the McCain campaign hasn’t pointed out the fact that Obama’s chief strategists’ firm is the driving force behind the campaign to quash a con-con=== Because almost all of McCain’s bigtime Illinois supporters are also against a Con-Con? Just a thought. - VanillaMan - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 1:17 pm: “Once in a lifetime” is only crazy to those of you who cannot count. The average age of Illinois’ voter is 46. The next chance this generation gets to vote will be when they are retired. How long do you expect to live? How many people do you know have died since 1988, when they didn’t get a chance to change our constitution. Feeling lucky? Then you haven’t checked out a life insurance policy lately, have you? If you are the average age, 46, and think you can just sit back and let this moment pass until 2028, then what do you expect to be able to do? You will be 66. How lively do you think you’ll be to take on special interests then? Most of today’s decision makers in Illinois government are Boomers. The next shot at a constitutional convention for them will mean they will be in their 80s. Those who want to dismiss this “once in a lifetime” opportunity are either too young to experience watching a friend die and discover that a lifetime is shorter then they realize, or cannot plan. This is the year. At like you probably get one crack at it. Make it a good one if you give a rat’s behind in changing how this government operates. - steve schnorf - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 2:23 pm: Ghost, we haven’t necessarily failed; we haven’t made things worse. And, anyone who thinks they can’t get worse is fooling themself. - Robo - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 3:07 pm: cermak_rd you’re right on target. Anybody who thinks that a bunch of goo-goos are going to be elected delegates are out of their minds. If the electorate was of a mind they could have elected them as legislators, governors etc. - Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 3:34 pm: ===If the electorate was of a mind they could have elected them as legislators, governors etc.=== And your genius alternative is what, exactly? - Robo - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 4:32 pm: Who says we need an alternative to elections? How are you going to legislate personalities or make them unconstitutional? Any attempt to approach alternatives to the current constitution based solely on dissatisfaction with the personalities in Springfield is going to lead to some real problems down the line. IT CAN GET WORSE. - Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 4:35 pm: ===is going to lead to some real problems down the line=== Name one state in the past 100 years that held a con-con and the resulting document was far worse than the original. Just one. - Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 4:35 pm: ===Who says we need an alternative to elections?=== Our state Constitution, for one. It gives us the right to call this convention every 20 years. - The Doc - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 4:59 pm: If not now, when? The intent is not to legislate personalities; rather, the personalities are manifested as a result of inadequate, ill-conceived, or entirely absent rules and regs. - steve schnorf - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 7:23 pm: Rich, I absolutely grant that the chances against a new constitution being “far worse” are steep, maybe 75-25. In poker or football I take that bet every time because the odds are good that I won’t lose, and I can live with the consequences if I do lose. But we’re not talking about football. Tell me the odds are 75-25 that I will survive a particular flight, and I’m staying home. What worries me about a con-con isn’t the odds, its the stakes. - Township_guy - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 7:39 pm: It is disappointing how neither party can get Boland out of office and they have thrown everything at him except the kitchen sink. He can give the Suehl family scholarships for another 25 years. What can voters do to prevent that? - there he goes again - Monday, Sep 8, 08 @ 11:06 pm: Predictions are that Boland will face someone new in 2010 — someone he has never faced before in the Democratic primary. - Doggone - Tuesday, Sep 9, 08 @ 8:07 am: If selling taxpayer financed scholarship for campaign cash isn’t a crime it should be. Where are the FEDs when you need them? Busy with Blago? - Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Sep 9, 08 @ 10:04 am: I do feel the need to reiterate that the problems does not lay with the Constitution, itself, but with its implementation (or often, violation) by our elected representatives and even the voters, themselves. Blago repeatedly “finds” money for his pet programs which the GA refused to fund by taking it from programs which they DID fund. He had repeatedly taken unconstitutional action, yet: has a state official ever filed and FOLLOWED THROUGH with a lawsuit over this? Have any citizens done so? Yes, gerrymandering is appalling. Still every 2-4 years, voters have a chance to show their objections to this practice at the ballot box. So, what do they do? Why, repeatedly vote the offenders back into office, that’s what. Then, there’s the argument about removing legislative maneuvering like keeping bills in committee to keep them from a vote. The problem is, no convention can anticipate every scummy concept a pol can come up with to circumvent the legislative process through means that are not blatantly unconstitutional. More simply put, for every offense, there is a defense, and these guys are more than adept at rewriting their playbook to suit the situation at hand. Finally, the reality check that proponents just love to pooh-pooh: yes, the powers that be WILL control the legislative process. So, big deal, legislators won’t be paid if they participate in the con-con. Well, guess what? A small number of them will do so, anyway. That would probably be a good thing, since you need SOME guidance from people with day-to-day experience with the legislative process, and the ones who will give up their pay would likely be essentially well-intentioned. The others? Well, you have the type (predominating) who are controlled by their committeemen. These committeemen will do what they always do when they feel they must win a certain race. The admittedly well-intentioned con-con proponents will run strive to place the requisite number of intelligent, open-minded and independent candidates on the ballot. For each independent candidate, the committeemen will counter with one candidate (”their ‘guy’”) whom they will back to the hilt. To run interference, they will throw in 1-3 “independent” candidates to bleed away the strength of the actual independent’s voting power. They will then sit back and watch their organizational advantage do it’s stuff. Let’s do a little math, shall we? Who is higher in numbers: those reform/independent-minded voters who know both the issues and the candidates, or those swayed in one way or the other by political organizations and/or their campaign war chests? The names Blagojevich, Stroger, Daley, etc. should answer that question quite handily. Incredibly, con-con proponents somehow believe that a con-con delegate election will somehow be different, even when the vast majority of voters don’t understand constitutional issues and won’t even try to. They understand over-taxation and bad representation, yet we have the Blagos and Strogers. What does that tell the rational person? I do applaud the con-con proponents for their zeal to change a crappy system and for their good intentions. But as I said, the problem does not lay with the Constitution, but with the people we elect to implement and protect it. And these people will wind up with, at the very least, a great degree of influence at the convetion. And hey, even if a white rabbit appears and they don’t control the election, they’re still the people who will implement and “protect” the new constitution. Sure, they won’t find ways to circumvent the parts of the new one that they don’t like … Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.