* I can’t believe I forgot to post my weekly syndicated newspaper column. Guess what? It’s about the constitutional convention…
There are many arguments against voting for a constitutional convention next month. I thought I’d try to address some of those arguments today.
Illinoisans are asked every 20 years whether they want to call a constitutional convention. I firmly believe our gridlocked, broken state government is in such desperate need of change and reform that a “yes” vote is blatantly self evident.
The points below are taken directly from the Web site of the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution. APIC is funded mainly by big business and labor unions.
APIC: The cost of a convention is predicted to approach at least $80 million at a time when the state is running budget deficits and having a tough time funding schools and roads.
Response: The cost could be far lower, but that’s not the point. The current constitution has a huge loophole that allows for those big budget deficits. And there is no plan to fund schools and roads because too much power is far too concentrated in the hands of a few people who have been fighting each other for years. A constitutional convention could address those absolutely crucial issues. It’s worth every dime.
APIC: There is no question there has been too much inaction and infighting in Springfield. But it’s the politicians, not the system, who are at fault. The best way to deal with political issues and address problems in state government is to pick new elected officials, not tinker with a proven document full of protections for people’s rights.
Response: The truth is the powerful interest groups that are funding this push against a constitutional convention also have been responsible for bankrolling those very same politicians’ campaigns. Also, since the parties in power totally control the legislative redistricting process, politicians end up choosing their voters, not the other way around.
APIC: A constitutional convention opens the door to more political mischief. The General Assembly, by law, gets to decide how a constitutional convention would be run. And the constitution is unclear about who would get to pick delegates to a constitutional convention, voters or politicians in Springfield. Regardless, special interests and single-issue groups would fight to get their people sent to the convention to advance their own narrow agendas.
Response: The constitution is very clear about who chooses delegates: The voters. Also, it’s quite ironic that the special interests funding APIC are worried about special interests getting involved in delegate elections.
APIC: Scheduling a convention for 2010 would give politicians a pass to do nothing until then to address the state’s problems. There will be primary and general elections between now and the time a new constitution would even go into effect. Those elections are the best way to bring about real change and pressure elected officials into action.
Response: My own belief is politicians will be so frightened at what a constitutional convention might do to them that they’ll try to correct some of the state’s problems, such as public employee pensions, before the delegates ever are seated. I think that’s as likely as the other side’s argument. Nothing is certain, but the anti-constitutional convention folks sure act like it.
APIC: Illinois cannot afford more discord and distractions. Some groups are calling for a state convention because they want to push their own agendas. There are too many crucial everyday concerns that need attention to get stuck on a long, divisive debate on such issues.
Response: What the heck is wrong with debates? The reality is the Statehouse too often deliberately stifles real debates on issues of concern to real voters. Plus, there are hardly any “major” groups pushing for a convention. Almost all the money and all the power is against a convention.
APIC: The uncertainty of a constitutional convention more than two years away could make it very difficult to attract and retain businesses and jobs at a time when the state’s economy already is struggling. Our neighbors offer certainty and stability to businesses we would lose by asking companies to gamble on us.
Response: Illinois is the laughingstock of the nation when it comes to attracting and retaining businesses and jobs. A constitutional convention might offer some much-needed encouragement to out-of-state business owners that change is on the way.
I’m out of space. I’ll have more next week.
- Bill - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:30 pm:
I knew it was coming.
===I’m out of space. I’ll have more next week. ===
Don’t bother.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:32 pm:
LOL.
Getting to you a bit, Bill?
- Bill - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:38 pm:
Yeah! Two more weeks!
- The Doc - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:39 pm:
When it’s laid out like this, line item by line item, the dribble being spewed via the APIC website makes me even more incensed. In particular, the last bullet point about retaining and attracting businesses, is laughable. We offer millions of dollars in legal bribes to lure businesses to our dungeon, and most of the prospects still say “no thanks”.
But Bill knows better.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:39 pm:
The anti-con-cons are trying to tell us that if we think things are corrupt now, just wait when the corrupted rewrite our constitution. They are claiming we are too corrupt to do this.
Can that be? Can we be too corrupt to have a state constitutional convention?
What hope is there for Illinois when we’ve reached a time when we are too corrupted to do this?
This way of thinking is too pessimistic and too insulting to be true.
- Fearless Leader - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:44 pm:
Any chance of making it simpler? Removing education etc., speaking of special interests?
- Sporty41 - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:44 pm:
Rich -
First a preface statement . . . I am a conservative and downstater. I agree with you that Springfield is a poster child for why this state needs a constitutional convention. But as a downstater, how do I ensure that the reforms that are necessary actually occur and that our overall leverage is not further weakened. I can’t fathom the Chicago Machine letting the playing field get leveled at Con-con.
- phocion - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:45 pm:
Rich, why not ask your prescient part-time pundits here to predict the results of the con-con vote? Bonus points if they predict who will sue to overturn the final outcome.
- Captain Flume - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:49 pm:
=Can we be too corrupt to have a state consitutional convention?=
Jeez, what? Did you just walk in from Montana? Of course, we can be too corrupt, and we probably are. But, I am all for seeing that corruption flourish in the resulting document from a con-con. We ain’t seen nuttin’ yet! And I ain’t kiddin’ here, bub.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:50 pm:
Sporty41, downstate gets a whole lot more perks and benefits from the “Chicago-controlled” GA than perhaps you know. Downstate is a big net importer of tax revenues from the rest of the state. Chicago is about revenue neutral and the suburbs are revenue negative.
I think downstate fears are way overblown, considering the totality of the evidence.
Remember, despite Gov. Blagojevich’s rather weird behavior, almost all (if not all) Chicago legislators just voted to keep small downstate state parks and historic sites open.
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:50 pm:
Rich, have you heard of any plans for a Con-con debate in the ‘patch? Did it already occur and ol’ AA slept through it?
- Harry Caray's Glasses - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:53 pm:
Wow Rich you have gone off the deep end. Why dont you pick apart the pro con con argument too? At least give the appearance that you have some objectivity or are all of their arguments valid and sound? Come on…
- Secret Square - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 2:58 pm:
Final con-con vote: 53 percent for, 47 against. However, not enough people will vote on the question for it to pass. Most people will just skip past it. The botched ballot wording will not help.
Who will sue to overturn the results: Pat Quinn and friends.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 3:00 pm:
HCG, the anti con-con folks are spending tons of money on their points. You may shed many tears for their poor underdog status, but I will not join you. lol
- Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 3:00 pm:
==Downstate is a big net importer of tax revenues==
I wish more people down here realized how screwed we would be without the Chicago area. It’s like arguing with someone who says Illinois is a red state because more counties vote GOP–you can show them all the numbers even a fifth grader would understand but it doesn’t sink in. Some people will grumble they think Chicagoland should be its own state, without thinking what the rest of the state would be. We would be Iowa without the urban charm…
- Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 3:04 pm:
==Be there or be square==
Square, with regrets. Any chance of YouTube video?
- Captain Flume - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 3:25 pm:
I predict the con-con vote will lose 45-55%. Further the total votes cast on con-con will about 65% for those cast for the highest statewide vote.
- North of I-80 - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 3:28 pm:
This part scares me “…The constitution is very clear about who chooses delegates: The voters…”.
The same voters who chose ALL of our current leaders, the legislators who created the mess in Springfield [and all of IL]. These same voters also Re-elected the same ones creating and compounding this embarrassing mess and now we are to feel safer because the same voters will now choose people to change the Constitution?
- doubtful - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 3:30 pm:
Harry Caray’s Glasses,
It’s more than a little silly to ask for neutrality on an opinion piece when the writer’s opinion is clearly stated from the outset:
“I firmly believe our gridlocked, broken state government is in such desperate need of change and reform that a “yes” vote is blatantly self evident.”
I think it would be better to make a case for why you disagree instead of throwing out unnecessary accusations of bias.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 3:39 pm:
I predict Jeff Mays will pull an Ozinga and cancel the debate when he discovers that Rich is in the bag for con-con. LOL
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 3:40 pm:
lol
I made them call Jeff and clear it in advance before consenting to moderate. He knows where I am on this issue and he was cool with it.
- Sporty41 - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 3:43 pm:
Central Illinois may be like Iowa, Everything South of I-64 will be Northern Kentucky.
- Secret Square - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 3:53 pm:
“Everything south of I-64 will be (like) Northern Kentucky.” Which is where many of the “founding fathers” of Illinois came from in the first place.
- Amuzing Myself - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 4:12 pm:
Nice work, Rich. Any chance you have a cool million or so to go on the air and tell enough voters for it to matter?
BTW, I agree with you. I’m just not sure the proponents have the financial ability to counter the major money opposition and reach that high 60% threshold, as much as I might like it to happen.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 4:22 pm:
===Any chance you have a cool million or so===
If I did, I wouldn’t be sitting here all day talking to you people.
lol
- washmyhands - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 4:34 pm:
When I voted for con-con yesterday, I swear I saw something that basically said not voting for or against con-con is a “NO” vote. Can this be true? Is it really that uphill of a battle?
- EmptySuitParade - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 4:39 pm:
Your most honest writing all season…”I can’t believe I forgot to post my ….”
It clearly suggest this is:
— not the issuepaloza that is cracked
— best way to waste $120 million since statewidetom got Blagoat to signs those MOUs.
I say more later. TeeHee
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 4:42 pm:
ESP, I forgot because I’m not a shameless self promoter. lol
- Levois - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 4:45 pm:
That hurts Rich.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 4:49 pm:
lol. It was a joke.
kinda
- steve schnorf - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 5:59 pm:
Many people seem to think that the Constitution allows too much power concentrated in the four leaders. OK, how would you all change the Constitution to fix that?
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 6:02 pm:
With or without the Captain rigging the moderation, Mays doesn’t have a prayer. He is up against a true master debater in Pat Quinn. That is said as a compliment. Kinda.
- Levois - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 6:55 pm:
I’m glad that there is still a debate over this, but at the end of the day what else is there to be said. We’ve seen as much as the arguments for and against on this referendum probably since the first time this came up in political circles. I just can’t wait to see how many people paid any attention to it. I especially would like to see how many people voted for it and the excuses of those who are against it.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 7:59 pm:
Steve, I suggest you go back and read earlier posts. Let’s not rehash all that here.
- Harry Carays Glasses - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 8:16 pm:
Rich,
On your point about “politicians being so frightened” I do not know what GA you have been watching but when you give a legislator an excuse they will take it. Cant you hear them now “why should I take a tough vote when a delegate will not have to get re-elected let them do the dirty work”. The more editorials like this without recognizing the clear flaws in the pro con con talking points makes you less persuasive not more persuasive.
- Speaking At Will - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 9:06 pm:
HCG
What is wrong with “letting delegates do the dirty work.” I would just be happy to see some “work” get done. Furthermore, there is a difference between being right and being biased.
Inside every anti- con con voter is a freedom loving Illinoisan trying to get out.
- Harry Carays Glasses - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 9:17 pm:
SAW
So I guess you do not want any real change until 2011 sorry that is to late and that is what will happen if we have a con con. Passing off the problems for 2 more years is not ok. I thought this was a change election. If you want change now stand up and make your legislators accountable or vote them out of office. Or I have an idea run for office or is everyone thinking they will just become a dlelegate because it will be easier. HA talk about ordinary citizens not having a snowballs chance to become a delegate. If you think it is hard getting elected State Rep or Stae Sen wait til you see these delegate races…
- GOP'er - Tuesday, Oct 21, 08 @ 9:47 pm:
I would like to be for the Con Con. I like the idea of open debate to make some needed reforms (like on redistricting).
But the key phrase there is “open debate.”
With the Republican Party in Illinois being such an embarrassing frickin’ disaster, it wouldn’t be so much a debate, as it would be a one way street.
Republicans should recognize that things can, and quite likely would get worse.
And the Dems don’t really need it because they already have the keys to the store anytime they want.
But I do respect what seem to be the good intentions of the Pro-side - except for Topinka who I think just sees it as a way to bitterly strike back at Blago, as if a recall provision could be implemented to remove him before he goes for other reasons, or gets beat in the next primary.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 22, 08 @ 12:00 am:
===So I guess you do not want any real change until 2011 sorry that is to late and that is what will happen if we have a con con. ===
Yeah. OK. When is this magical non con-con “change” supposed to start? It’s been quite a while now, and no change.
How do you think this magic will occur?
- Squideshi - Wednesday, Oct 22, 08 @ 12:32 am:
Any word on if the debate will be webcast?