* Family’s coming to town, so it should be a good weekend, even with the rain. I hope yours is fabulous. And, hey, if you know Neil Malone, he’s moving this weekend into his new house in Springfield and needs some help. I probably won’t be able to make it because of my guests, so hopefully somebody will show up from the blog.
But, before you go, make sure to buy a classifed ad or post a calendar item or your resume at InsiderzExchange. And, as always, check out Illinoize. It’s hopping.
* Kevin was off today and I forgot to do Friday Beer Blogging. Here it is.
* I don’t think we’ve ever had a video from this band before…
Pushing up I hope for the sun,
but I’ll take the rain with what all it comes
* The Sun-Times tried to get one of our two US Senators to answer a simple question about the raging Statehouse battle over ethics reform. The result? Obama’s campaign clammed up…
While Barack Obama left an imprint on two major ethics packages as a state senator, he ducked a plea Thursday to use his influence to safeguard landmark state legislation barring big government contractors from making campaign contributions. […]
“As a presidential candidate, this is small potatoes. But as Illinois’ U.S. senator, this is a place he could come in and quickly clean up some of the damage and serve his state,” said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, which has pushed for the donation restrictions for three years. […]
“A 30-second phone call to the Illinois Senate president could yield huge dividends to this state,” [Canary] said. […]
Obama’s campaign refused to tell the Sun-Times whether the senator supports either version. And a spokesman ducked questions on whether Obama would speak with Jones, as Canary suggested. […]
“[Obama] encourages the Illinois General Assembly and Gov. Blagojevich to further those reforms by passing strong ethics legislation this session that limits the influence of money in the political process,” [Obama campaign spokesman Justin DeJong] said.
DeJong declined to clarify which “reforms” Obama would like to see carried out in Springfield: the original bill his former good-government ally wants or Blagojevich’s more sweeping approach that some critics believe was designed to kill the whole package entirely. […]
“If he’s the reformer he says he is, why would he not encourage cleaning up his home state, which is one of the most corrupt at this point in the United States?” said Sen. Christine Radogno (R-Lemont). “He has an opportunity to really put some action behind his words, and he won’t do it.
Canary and Radogno are absolutely right.
Gov. Palin said something at the Republican convention about how some had used the cause of reform to further their career, while John McCain had used his career to further the cause of reform. Obama can prove he can walk the walk by intervening in this fight.
Pick up the phone, Barack!
…Adding… Putting Obama on the spot like this is a classic move from the Saul Alinsky playbook. My favorite Alinsky story: A group of people wanted to pry something loose from the local power elite, so they bought a bunch of tickets to the opera (I think it was the opera) and scheduled a bean-eating party beforehand. They got their meeting.
Since Obama is a former community organizer in the Alinsky tradition, he probably used that tactic many times.
State Sen. James Meeks (D-Chicago) on Friday pressured business leaders who have bankrolled Chicago’s 2016 Olympic bid to put their money and political muscle behind a more important cause: improving public schools.
Meeks showed up at a breakfast meeting of the Executives’ Club of Chicago—not to confront featured speaker and Chicago 2016 Chairman Pat Ryan, but to enlist Ryan’s help in the battle to correct the school funding disparity between rich and poor districts.
Hundreds of state layoffs and the closing of two dozen state historic sites and parks will proceed as planned in the comings weeks as Illinois lawmakers appear unable to agree on how to prevent them.
A day after the Illinois House voted to restore $221 million in funding cuts by tapping special state bank accounts, the Senate announced it would not return to the Capitol to consider it and other moves until Nov. 12. […]
“We took the tough votes in May,” Davidsmeyer said, adding that the Senate approved taking $530 million from the state accounts to keep programs and sites open. “Frankly, $221 million [which the House approved this week]does not reflect the concerns we have about the budget,” she said.
The fate of high-profile ethics legislation is up in the air now that Senate President Emil Jones is waiting until after the Nov. 4 election to call senators back to Springfield, prompting charges he wants to kill the reforms. […]
Jones told Democrats in a memorandum Thursday that the Senate would not return until its already scheduled veto session Nov. 12. His spokeswoman, Cindy Davidsmeyer, said ethics legislation does not need attention now because, if enacted, it would not take effect until Jan. 1.
But several lawmakers from both parties said Jones is wrong to wait because doing so will jeopardize the legislation. They cited a provision in the state constitution that a 15-day clock starts ticking once one chamber votes on a governor’s proposed changes and delivers the legislation to the second chamber. Without action after 15 days, the legislation would die.
The House delivered the ethics legislation Thursday to the secretary of the Senate, but Jones said the 15-day clock does not start until the Senate returns and reads the bill into the official record.
* What most concerns the ethics reform proponents is this point…
Patty Schuh, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, said this has never happened in the Senate before. By interpreting the Constitution in a “unique” way, she said, the leadership is jeopardizing the ethics reform. Ultimately, the legislation could land in court and further delay the implementation of the contribution limits. “In the meantime, the fundraising machines keep rolling.”
Ann Lousin, a 1970 constitutional convention delegate, a former House parliamentarian and a current law professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, agrees with the Senate’s interpretation. Although she disclaimed that she has not been a House parliamentarian since January 1975, said she recalls, “The House is not the House unless it’s in session.” It follows, she said, that if the Senate is not in session, then it cannot receive the bills acted upon by the other chamber. She compared it to getting a letter on Sunday, which you can’t actually receive until the post office opens for business Monday.
Charlie Wheeler, longtime Statehouse reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times and current director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield, said while the more logical argument would be that the clock doesn’t start running until the message has been read into the record, the interpretation could be argued either way.
* Even prominent reformers aren’t sure. This is a statement from ICPR director Cindi Canary..
I have consulted with at least half a dozen attorneys today, and they are pretty evenly split on whether the clock starts now or can be delayed until the Senate returns. The only thing that they agree on is that this has never been litigated, so it is a gray area. I, for one, have no interest in seeing this become the test case.
We know that we have a nexus between large campaign contributions and state contracts, and the Senate has it in its power to enact this workable solution tomorrow. After three years of fighting this battle, I don’t understand why, when the legislature knows what to do to address a problem, they continue to let politics and ego trump effective government. The bill is far from dead, but it is disheartening that another round of games playing has been proposed by President Jones.
Jones sat on [the ethics bill] for nearly a year, but the federal corruption trial of Blagojevich pal Antoin “Tony” Rezko finally shook it loose. The Senate couldn’t afford to be seen as protecting the pay-to-play culture; it tweaked the bill and passed it unanimously. Both chambers pledged to override any veto, and it was clear they had the votes to do so.
Blagojevich spent the next several weeks hustling up campaign cash at fundraisers that would be illegal under the bill gathering dust on his desk. Then he loaded it up with amendments, sent it back to lawmakers to squabble over and crossed his fingers that it would die. The House answered with a resounding 110-3 vote to override.
It’s back to you now, President Jones. The people of Illinois haven’t forgotten.
* Democratic congressional candidate Colleen Callahan floated a pretty controversial proposal during a candidates debate this week…
One contrast did emerge when Democrat Colleen Callahan responded to a question asking what unpopular or controversial issue she would champion by saying she would re-institute the draft, saying it would be the “fairest way” to rebuild the military stressed from handling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I know my campaign staff isn’t going to like me saying say this,” Callahan said. “I know from all of those who are currently serving, proud as they are of their service, many of them are coming from the National Guard and it leaves us open, at risk, here at home where we have needs from disasters.”
Any time you hear a candidate say: “I know my campaign staff isn’t going to like me saying say this,” make sure to turn on your tape recorder. What follows will almost always be newsworthy.
Callahan said Thursday that the question put to the candidates a day earlier was merely hypothetical and that her answer was conditional.
“I’m not advocating it,” she said of a draft. “I wouldn’t introduce legislation that says that.” But, she added, “When I’m the congressman, if that came up for my vote, would I consider it? Yes.”
News reports and the person who asked the question said it had been more direct.
Mike Dimmick, a news anchor on WEEK-TV in Peoria, said Thursday that the question he asked was, “Can you name one tough, even unpopular issue you’d be willing to champion if elected to Congress?”
In response, WEEK video showed, Callahan said, “If you want honesty and candor, I will say reinstitute the draft. You can gasp if you want, but I believe it is the fairest way for us to begin to rebuild our military.”
* Meanwhile, as I’ve pointed out before, the issue of a proposed suburban freight railroad expansion has residents up in arms. A recent forum in the south suburbs drew hundreds of people…
The prospect of running more trains on the EJ&E Railroad line and forever altering suburban lifestyles led to another packed public meeting Monday night.
About 300 people jammed into a ballroom at the Holiday Inn in Matteson to listen and chime in on Canadian National Railway’s plans to buy the EJ&E. And once again, the plans elicited no shortage of passion. […]
CN wants to buy from U.S. Steel for $300 million the 198 miles of EJ&E tracks rimming the Chicago area and cutting through Southland towns such as Chicago Heights, Park Forest, Matteson, Frankfort and New Lenox. The towns along the tracks would see train traffic more than triple as CN reroutes trains from busier rail lines in Chicago and the inner suburbs.
* 11th District Democratic Congressional candidate Debbie Halvorson has spoken against the planned expansion. The Democratic/liberal blog Progress Illinois posted a letter that seems to show one of Ozinga’s companies supports the railroad plan…
As a candidate, Ozinga has so far been mum on the sale. But his concrete company is a different story. In a Nov. 1, 2007 letter to the federal Surface Transportation Board, one of Ozinga Bros.’ subsidiaries — Ozinga Transportation — explicitly endorsed the plan.
* I asked the Ozinga campaign for a response and initially received this…
“This is yet another misleading attack from Debbie Halvorson. The fact is, Marty Ozinga has pledged to do everything in his power to adequately address the concerns of local communities as it relates to the Canadian National proposal…”
* I sent an e-mail back asking specifically if Ozinga supports or opposes the railroad proposal. The reply…
Marty wants the concerns of the affected communities addressed before anything moves forward. That’s his position.
Clear as mud?
*** UPDATE 1 *** From the Halvorson campaign….
Halvorson For Congress Campaign Manager Brian Doory released a statement today regarding Ozinga Transportation’s November 2007statement, on behalf of Ozinga Bros. Inc, that stated “strong support” for the Canadian National Railway’s proposed acquisition of the EJ&E Railway.
“Why won’t Marty Ozinga accept responsibility for sending this letter? Why won’t he take responsibility for his company’s actions? This is a question of integrity, consistency and values and the voters deserve to know exactly who Marty Ozinga will represent in Congress: his own bottom line or the interests of the community.”
“Does Marty Ozinga deny his company sent this letter? How can Marty say that he doesn’t support the CN acquisition when Ozinga Brothers is clearly on record in “strong support” of the deal? Has Marty denounced the letter or even said he is opposed to the deal?”
“Marty Ozinga is playing games with the voters. Why does he refuse to put his mouth where his money is? Until he does, one thing is clear: Marty Ozinga is only representing his own bottom-line.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** From the Ozinga campaign…
In an announcement sure to spark outcry from working families across Illinois’ 11th Congressional District, Senate President Emil Jones – Career Politician Debbie Halvorson’s “father figure,” according to Halvorson herself – said Thursday that he would not call senators back to Springfield until after the November elections.
His announcement means that five state parks in the 11th District will close. And it means that the ethics reform bill will die.
Based on her own words, one can only assume that Debbie Halvorson – despite whatever she may now say out of political expediency – agrees with the Blagojevich-Jones agenda of closing state parks and killing ethics reform.
* On another front, GOP Congresscritter Mark Kirk is on the attack…
One of the leading moderate Republicans in the House, Kirk is among the wonkiest members of Congress. So when he goes full bore against his Democratic opponent, business consultant Dan Seals, it’s evident that he knows he’s in the political fight of his career. In an interview here last week — conducted just after he had finished discussing the minute details of energy policy with other moderate Republicans — Kirk leveled some harsh, personal attacks against Seals, calling him an unemployed carpetbagger who wants to raise voters’ taxes.
“He didn’t move into the district and has some résumé issues. He has no steady job. He made $5,000 in income this year. He has made a number of missteps,” Kirk said. ”One of the things my opponent wants to do is raise the capital gains tax. You don’t have to explain a capital gains tax cut in my district. They can spell it out to you in spades, what it has done for their family.”
* That prompted a response from Kos frontpager brownsox…
It’s absolutely true that Seals “made $5,000 in income this year”.
It is also true that Mark Kirk himself made $7,000 the year he first ran for Congress.
* I could not disagree more with the venerable Abner Mikva…
The risks of a constitutional convention driven by the special interests are real, and the casualties could include the power of local governments, an independent judiciary, civil rights for minorities, women and gay people and the rights of gun owners and gun victims alike, to name a few.
Voter disenchantment with Springfield has made the possibility of recall for elected officials an attractive reason for a constitutional convention, but even there the risk for unworkable provisions that hamstring legislators or interfere with judicial independence are real.
A constitutional convention is not the way for Illinois to address its current gridlock, heal its divisiveness or fix a failure of leadership. That’s what elections are for.
A successful constitutional convention requires political cooperation, strong leadership and a growing consensus about what’s good for Illinois. None of those factors exists today, and a constitutional convention would likely serve only to lock in our present-day dysfunctions for years to come. Illinois is not ready for a constitutional convention.
Let’s take these one at a time.
1) Special interests are not driving the push for a con-con. Special interests are wholly unified against a con-con.
2) I’m an agnostic on recall, but could he possibly talk out of both sides of his mouth any more?
3) If “change” is purely the province of candidate elections, then why did the Constitution’s drafters allow voters the right to decide whether to call another convention? We have two ways to effect political change in Illinois: Elections and (every 20 years) a con-con.
4) Illinois isn’t ready for a constituional convention? Could Mikva sound any more like one of those old-timey “Illinois ain’t ready for change” ward heelers?
* Before we begin today’s discussion of my latest Sun-Times column, I want to lay down one big rule: This myth promulgated by some of her supporters that Gov. Palin had to stay at home and collect her per diem because she had a difficult pregnancy is not believable on at least a couple of fronts.
The governor’s water broke during the energy conference but she stayed and gave a 30-minute speech before boarding an Alaska Airlines plane home to deliver the baby.
Second, these per diem payments go back at least to March of 2007, long before she was pregnant.
* Also, I’m not the only one who apparently saw the connection between Blagojevich and Palin. The AP ran this story after I submitted my column to the paper yesterday…
A governor who spends a lot of time away from the Capitol, whose family travels at state expense, who is criticized for not showing up at crucial legislative moments — the scrutiny of the travel and work habits of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin sounds familiar in Illinois, where Gov. Rod Blagojevich has faced similar criticism.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is now exactly where our own governor wanted to be four years ago.
Before the 2002 gubernatorial election results were even counted, Rod Blagojevich’s friends were touting him as a potential vice presidential nominee in 2004. He was a young, refreshing, telegenic change agent who had ended 26 years of Republican rule. A Midwest populist whose father was a working-class, first-generation American, Blagojevich, like Palin, had a great story to tell and the ability to tell it.
Then, everything fell apart. An obscure African-American state senator got himself nominated for the U.S. Senate in the 2004 Democratic primary, and all of a sudden nobody wanted to talk about Rod Blagojevich.
It’s probably a good thing for the Democrats that Blagojevich’s star faded so fast. The shoddy, even shady, way he ran his office and his numerous character flaws weren’t fully appreciated back then.
Those character flaws and governing style have been on my mind a lot as I’ve watched the spectacular unveiling of Gov. Palin as John McCain’s running mate.
Palin has that same uncanny ability as Blagojevich to cheerily repeat a blatant falsehood over and over. All politicians do this to some degree or another, but these two seem to truly believe their own untruths.
For instance, Palin’s repeated claims to have stopped the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” are just false. Congress stopped that bridge a year before Palin was elected governor. Congress allowed Alaska to keep the $459 million earmarked for the bridge and another, lesser known bridge, and Palin eventually abandoned her campaign pledge to continue the fight. By the way, your tax dollars are still building a $25 million road to that infamous and nonexistent bridge. Why? Because if Palin didn’t build the road she’d have to give the money back to the U.S. taxpayers.
Governors Palin and Blagojevich appear to have the same hypocritical bullying attitude toward their respective Legislatures. Like Blagojevich, Palin has called numerous, rancorous special legislative sessions and often hasn’t bothered to show up for them.
Last fall, Palin’s absence during a special session provoked legislators to don “Where’s Sarah?” buttons. Rod Blagojevich called one of his umpteen special sessions last year and then attended a hockey game in Chicago.
Like Blagojevich, Palin chooses not to live in her state’s governor’s mansion. Both governors fly back and forth to the capital at taxpayers’ expense. But Palin one-ups Blagojevich because she also charges taxpayers thousands of dollars to work from her home.
Palin claimed to have fired the governor’s mansion chef, but the governor kept the woman on the state payroll as a “constituent relations assistant.” Blagojevich claims to have reduced the governor’s office budget, but he really just moved most of those employee payrolls to other state agencies.
Palin’s wars with her Legislature have produced the same horrible relationship with Alaska’s Senate president, a fellow Republican, as Blagojevich has with House Speaker Michael Madigan, a fellow Democrat. Senate President Lyda Green has pronounced Palin unprepared for the vice presidency. Madigan is Blagojevich’s chief critic.
As a result, Gov. Palin is now attempting to sidetrack a legislative investigation into her alleged attempts to have her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police. Speaker Madigan distributed pro-impeachment talking points earlier this year.
Palin has many strengths that Blagojevich does not possess. But her shocking relish for repeating blatant lies, her eerily familiar battles with her Legislature and political party leaders, and her refusal to spend time at the statehouse while demanding others do so are all giving me an uneasy case of deja vu.
For much of the past half century, a mayor named Daley has towered over Chicago. We compare the reigns of father and son, assessing their triumphs and failures, their impact on the city—and what their enduring dominance at the polls says about us
* Foreclosures Hit Another Record High - Cook County Tries to Help
