|
On caps and Madigan
Tuesday, Nov 3, 2009 - Posted by Rich Miller * The SJ-R says Gov. Pat Quinn ought to sign the campaign finance bill…
More…
Cullerton may have been referring to a recent Chicago Tribune story which started out by noting how much money had been spent on Forby’s 2008 race, then quickly moved on to a discussion of how House Speaker Michael Madigan maintains such a tight hold on his chamber. The Forby example made little sense in context because not a single Forby vote was ever pointed to as evidence that he was owned by Cullerton. That’s the big fallacy here. The Statehouse secret is that “targets” almost always have the most independent-looking voting records of just about any legislator. Democratic Rep. Jack Franks represents a solidly Republican district. He never votes party line, except on routine parliamentary stuff. He rants and raves about budget deficits, but won’t ever vote for a tax hike. Ever. And the more targets a leader has, the less likely that said leader will move legislation that will upset the voters. Witness Speaker Madigan’s fear about an income tax hike this year. Madigan is worried sick that a tax hike would imperil the size of his majority, if not his majority itself. So, the House wouldn’t pass a tax increase. The legislators who take the real tough votes - on both sides of the aisle - are the ones who almost never have to worry about general election contests. Those members, however, do have to worry about the occasional primary contests - and this year there seem to be more of those than ever in Chicago. Capping leader contributions in primaries does, indeed, weaken their hold over the GA because they cannot retaliate as easily. All that being said, the huge amount of money it takes to win a tiny handful of targeted races does skew the legislative process towards the interests with the deepest pockets. And that’s a big reason why so little ever gets done. Both business and labor have contributed heavily to Speaker Madigan’s campaign coffers, which tends to hold down the number of the usual Democratic pro-labor bills coming out of the House. So, while stuff like this from Byrne [post edited] may make “common sense,” it’s not actually true…
* From the Pantagraph, which has been the Tribune’s little sister for years…
Leader contributions should be capped in general elections in order to reduce some of the sway that special interests have in both chambers. But if anybody thinks that capping those contris would ever pry MJM’s grip off the House’s throat, they’re completely delusional. The man is unusually talented - spectacularly so - and mere laws will not work to loosen his hold. Nothing will change in the GA until Speaker Madigan leaves. Period.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:17 am:
No attack, Niles. Besides you brought Quinn up. You were rather quick to defend Quinn. I don’t think he should necessarily be absolved of any blame. Just pointing out to you that other governors, even ones not of Madigan’s political party, have been able to get things done and run the state.
Common sense: You’re going into a lion’s den, guess what? You’re probably going to have to deal with a lion.
- Niles Township - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:17 am:
“Nothing will change in the GA until Speaker Madigan leaves. Period.”
—————
Could not agree more. It is easy to blame Quinn or the legislature as a whole, but anyone who knows anything about the way the state works, knows until the speaker is gone, nothing changes.
- Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:28 am:
Niles, be that as it may, people have still managed to get things done and either work with Madigan or, to whatever extent they can, around him. I understand that you like Quinn, but surely you aren’t blaming his poor performance/showing thus far as governor on Mike Madigan, are you?
Did anyone in his or her right mind honestly think that Madigan was going to do anything to undercut his power? In the history of history no powerbroker has ever done that. So, why would Mike Madigan?
- D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:28 am:
And that is why more transparency is the best approach v. any attempts at strict caps. As USSC noted, money, like water, will find a way to flow in politics. So, making sure we can see it flowing is the best disinfectant given our current real politik.
- Scooby - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:30 am:
The HGOP made it clear they were going to go all out to keep Aaron Schock’s old seat in 2008. The House dems wouldn’t lift a finger to help Dem nominee Jehan Gordon until she 1) pledged her undying devotion to Speaker Madigan and promised to vote for him for Speaker, 2) repuidated sworn Madigan enemy Jay Hoffman (Hoffman helped her win the primary) and 3) had the entire black caucus put pressure on leadership.
If the law prevented the HGOP leadership from spending unlimited amounts to defeat her, you probably would not have seen Gordon pledge to help Madigan strengthen his grip on the House.
- A Citizen - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:38 am:
Rich, you are still on Daylight Savings Time - Is this a new trend? Can we all just decide to do this too? I like it - should be year round!
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:41 am:
What I see is angry voters who are angry over nothing changing in a state government where doing nothing is seen as a reason for this state’s crisis.
Normally, politicians are afraid of doing the wrong thing, so they avoid the tough votes. But this has been going on for so many years with the same group of players, that voters have concluded that they are more than just incompetent - they are lazy to boot.
The stagnation we have been seeing in Illinois opens another line of attack against the status quo in power. So, now, not only are the people in control over Illinois corrupted and incompetent - they seem unwilling to even try. They seem unwilling to even pretend.
I suppose there comes a time in an elected officials belief when they see public disinterest in governmental affairs as an acceptance and a level of trust given to them. If the voters, they reason, are quiet, it is because the voters don’t care. How else to explain the disconnect between our elected officials and voter anger?
The last decade in Illinois has been a “Lost Decade”. Instead of addressing our fiscal disasters with a reformer governor and a new Party in Power, we sank into corruption and incompetence, party infighting and a Senator Burris. The problems we faced in 2000, are still there, but have dramatically worsened. During the “Lost Decade”, Illinois budget has increased nearly 40%, and our unpaid bills now total in the BILLIONS, forcing bankrupsies and job loss.
Bottom line - sign the legislation. The Party In Power needs to demonstrate to an angry electorate that it is not as comatose as it has appeared to them over the past three years.
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:42 am:
Well, as Rome burns our intrepid leader, MJM, plays the fiddle. A unelected (statewide) politician holds enormous power over the hapless electorate and can not be removed. Our very own Hugo Chavez. Can he be removed from office after he dies of old age?
- Bring Back Boone's - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:42 am:
In re: President Cullerton’s “I’m eager to hear somebody say why I’m wrong.” How about instead of using the joke of an example of the motorcycle helmet bill we use the examples of the recall bill under Emil’s leadership, or better yet the Com Ed bill? How did the Senators whom the President gave mounds of money vote on those issues? What a bunch of bs.
- irv & ashland - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:43 am:
By the way, your link to Kass is actually a link to a Dennis Byrne piece about Daley’s hold on Chicago. Freudian slip?
- John Bambenek - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:44 am:
Nothing will change in the GA until Speaker Madigan leaves. Period.
Not if I can get the Putback Amendment on the ballot.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:53 am:
Rich, that’s a Dennis Byrne column, not Kass. They’re both a couple of whiners with victim complexes, so it’s an understandable mistake.
Anyone who lumps Carl Sandburg (boring) in with Royko or Algren (great) obviously doesn’t appreciate any of them.
But it’s a neat, although cheap, writer’s trick to associate his own hackneyed product with their talent.
Byrne’s one of those columnists who should disclose his “consultant” client list. Then, you might understand where he’s coming from — maybe.
- Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:53 am:
If he survives the Primary, maybe Quinn will push for the Putback Amendment to correct his now infamous Cutback Amendment. After all he was for it before he was against, or, um something like that.
?!?!?!?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:54 am:
===If the law prevented the HGOP leadership from spending unlimited amounts to defeat her, you probably would not have seen Gordon pledge to help Madigan strengthen his grip on the House. ===
Wrong.
Madigan was in a death fight with Blagojevich and Hoffman. Hoffman backed Gordon in the primary. You’re right that what MJM wanted was her vote for Speaker - to make sure that Blagojevich couldn’t mess with him. The rest is basically up to her and her district’s interests - admittedly, as envisioned by staff.
- Secret Square - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:54 am:
The 11th Commandment for legislative staffers: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy Speaker in vain
- Anonymous45 - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:57 am:
yep…nothing will change until MJM is gone…
- Anonymous45 - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 10:59 am:
@ WCW: because it’s in the best interest of his party and the people of the State of IL…that’s why…
- Niles Township - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:02 am:
Niles, be that as it may, people have still managed to get things done and either work with Madigan or, to whatever extent they can, around him. I understand that you like Quinn, but surely you aren’t blaming his poor performance/showing thus far as governor on Mike Madigan, are you?
——————–
WCW: I made a simple comment about Rich’s statement re: Madigan. I think it reveals more about you than me that instantly go into Quinn attack mode even when we aren’t discussing that.
- George - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:12 am:
Rich - you have now time-warped the comments. Replies are appearing above the original posts!
Cats and dogs living together!
- Anonymous45 - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:13 am:
@ WCW: MJM should do the right thing because it’s in the best interests of the Dem Party of IL, and the citizens of the State of IL…
- L.S. - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:13 am:
This debate started way back when as an approach to ethics reforms in the wake of RBB scandals. I’m still wondering how it became about Madigan. Say what you will, I for one and happy we had SOMEONE with the ability, experiance and spine to keep the runaway freight train that was the governor’s office in check. Lord knows how much more damage Blago could have done if there was no Madigan?
And this “he’s not elected statewide” nonsense needs to stop. He’s the Speaker, elected by the House members. It’s the way the constitution lays it out. Take a social studies class.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:15 am:
===or better yet the Com Ed bill?===
The Senators who stopped that Forby bill all had no general election worries, which just proves my point and disproves yours.
- Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:18 am:
I think it might take more than just getting it on the ballot John.
- train111 - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:19 am:
Speaking of the speaker and things never changing: Do my spidey senses pick up a couple of ringers in the 23rd Assembly race. Daniel J. Burke faces opposition for the first time in many years from a well known Latino in a heavily Latino district and lo and behold on the last day of filing two unknowns with Latino last names file to run for the same seat.
hmmmm
train111
- CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:22 am:
Capt Fax:
As soon as you get your Silly Sauce level below .08 could you share with all of us your vision of Illinois in the post “Nothing will change in the GA until Speaker Madigan leaves. Period. ”
Pristine rivers, clear skies, smarter kids, fewer mopes, lower taxes, tidier manufacturers, mistake free docs, better Chicago, etc…..
We listen to all this nonsense day in and day out and never does anyone list the table of contents for the new era in Illinois. Never does the media ever bother to offer their vision.
Some “reformers” talk about more competitive legisative races. Let all 177 House and Senate districts compete in primary and general. Then what?
At the CFS, we can see a state without any leash on special interests….utilities go back to reverse auctions & sky rocketing rates, banks run wild(er), would you like cherry smog with those coal particles, a casino — licensed at the usual giveaway rates — in every pot…get the picture.
I’ll hang up and wait for your comment.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:25 am:
Nothing will change in the GA until Speaker Madigan leaves. Period.
Let’s not forget the old axiom, “Nature abhors a vacuum.”
When Madigan retires, who — or what — will take his place?
Let’s not forget that it was Madigan who almost single-handedly stood up to the Blagojevich antics of the last seven years.
When Madigan retires, you can most assuredly bet that the power of “special interests” in the Illinois General Assembly will rise.
Maybe that’s a good thing, maybe its not, but perhaps we shouldn’t go marching blindly down the highway of “reform” until we know what lies at the end of the road.
- irv & ashland - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:26 am:
Rich, I feel you’re arguing semantics with Byrne. The fact that structured votes mean that targets don’t have to vote “the wrong way”; the fact that the leaders don’t necessarily move legislation that would be unpopular in swing districts; neither of those things mean targets are “independent” of their leaders. They are “unendingly servile” and that fact does flow from the fact that the leaders can control the flow of money. And the leaders can control the flow of money BECAUSE they have the power to structure votes and to protect targets from difficult votes, which the moneyed interests understand.
And I guess in a way, I’m arguing semantics with you as well, because you understand all this. I just don’t see how you can say Byrne is “wrong” for what he wrote. Byrne is only wrong at the Kabuki level. The bottomline servility remains.
- George - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:27 am:
Nothing will change in the GA until Speaker Madigan leaves. Period.
Rich,
Be sure to take extra precautions today.
Sealed foods. Remote start the car. etc.
- Scooby - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:28 am:
Not wrong. Absolutely not wrong. Gordon doesn’t get on the Madigan bandwagon if she isn’t facing down all of Cross’ money. That is absolutely not wrong, she told me so. So if the law prevents Cross from giving her opponent unlimited amounts of money then she’s not an automatic vote for Mike Madigan for Speaker.
The rest of your point about the Blagojevich/Madigan fight is a red herring that has nothing to do with decision Gordon made and/or whether or not she is a loyal Madigan vote. Your red herring only had to do with Madigan’s thought process, not hers, and the loyalty of the mushrooms is the issue here.
- You are wrong, Rich - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:30 am:
== “Nothing will change in the GA until Speaker Madigan leaves. Period.” ==
I completely disagree. Whoever is in charge will always fight tooth and nail to preserve their majority. The Speaker may be the master chess player, but another player will take his place. While he/she might be an amateur compared to Madigan, he/she will do everything possible to retain power. The only real difference will be that the General Assembly will probably call more populus/liberal items and targets won’t have someone reminding them to vote their district. Keep in mind all the crappy votes Emil made his minions take during his reign. Keep in mind all the crappy votes Cross encourages his minions to take.
You will see the 4 leaders, including the new speaker, fight to claim the throne. And in the meanwhile, the GA will pass a bunch of garbage.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:31 am:
And that is why more transparency is the best approach v. any attempts at strict caps. As USSC noted, money, like water, will find a way to flow in politics. So, making sure we can see it flowing is the best disinfectant given our current real politik.
Actually, the transparency argue depends on the outdated notion that voters are actually paying attention.
Last time I checked, fewer than 20% of the public reads newspapers, and half of those only read the sports section.
The real solution is public financing, but none of the Reformers have the courage to advance that idea in the current budget climate.
I think that if we can all agree that the cost of corruption is $1 billion in Chicago and the statehouse alone, then appropriating $300 million to publicly finance all elections more than pays for itself.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:32 am:
DD, Hugo Chavez? Really? Get a grip, brother. You live in the United States, and should have some respect for the blessings you enjoy.
I’m fascinated by the antipathy to Madigan from those on the right. He’s very conservative — in the true sense of the word, not the wacky perversion exercised by the Fox yabbos.
VMan, The “Lost Decade?” How Gertrude Stein of you. What exactly has been lost? What did you want — higher taxes, state employee layoffs?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 11:35 am:
Gordon doesn’t get on the Madigan bandwagon if she isn’t facing down all of Cross’ money. That is absolutely not wrong, she told me so. So if the law prevents Cross from giving her opponent unlimited amounts of money then she’s not an automatic vote for Mike Madigan for Speaker.
Lets assume Cross and Madigan couldn’t give Gordon or her opponent a dime.
Here’s how that race plays out:
Caterpillar has a fundraiser for her opponent, and their execs pony up $500 to $5000 a piece.
The Peoria J-S writes the op-eds against her.
Schock signs a direct mail appeal on her opponent’s behalf, raising gobs more.
Gordon loses, because there aren’t enough Democrats with enough money in Peoria County to finance her campaign.
- Easy - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 12:12 pm:
>
YDD, you mean except when Madigan co-chaired Rod’s re-election campaign, right? Yes, we can all thank MJM for really taking a principled stand on that one.
- Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 12:15 pm:
LoL! Easy gotcha there YDD. Maybe you should just quite while you’re ahead?
- Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 12:15 pm:
ooops I meant quit
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 12:25 pm:
===a red herring that has nothing to do with decision Gordon made===
Wrong again.
I also talked to Gordon several times. That fight played a major role in her decision-making throughout the year. She actually played it quite well, leveraging Hoffman’s help in the primary when MJM was supposedly “neutral,” and then using that Blago/MJM fight in the general to pry Madigan loose.
MJM was under huge pressure from the black caucus to get in there for her. This didn’t play out in some sort of vacuum. If Madigan had taken a walk, as he was, indeed, quietly implying he’d do if she didn’t pledge her vote for Speaker, the BC would’ve thrown a huge fit - and that would’ve caused MJM major problems in his upcoming war with the governor and Hoffman.
Also, Gordon’s GOP opponent was quite well funded by local wealthy types. She raised over $100K on her own in the first six months of the year.
Schock was working hand-in-hand with Krupa, the local paper was bashing Gordon every chance they got, and, yes, Cross was going in with both guns blazing because of unsavory incidents in Gordon’s past which made the district winnable.
Also, get real. Cap Cross’ direct contributions and Cross would’ve just held fundraisers for Krupa all over the state. And he would’ve done tons of independent expenditures.
- David - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 12:30 pm:
I agree with the statement that nothing will change without Madigan gone. I would’ve like to seen a Con-Con too, but the voters didn’t agree.
- Scooby - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 12:43 pm:
Again, and for the cheap seats, my point is that Gordon facing down Cross’ money became an automatic vote for Madigan for Speaker, and if she wasn’t facing down that money she’s not an automatic vote. Doubling down on more red herrings doesn’t make that less true.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 12:45 pm:
===if she wasn’t facing down that money she’s not an automatic vote===
She’d still be facing down Krupa’s money. And it was substantial.
And you can’t just make up some fairy tale land where leader money doesn’t exist and never will exist and then claim others are using red herrings.
- Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 12:47 pm:
Anonymous45, I don’t necessarily disagree with you about your take on Mike Madigan and the state’s interests.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 1:11 pm:
===Whoever is in charge will always fight tooth and nail to preserve their majority. The Speaker may be the master chess player, but another player will take his place.===
Duh.
The difference is one of degrees. I have never seen anyone with Madigan’s skill in this state. Ever. I envision his exit like the felling of the Berlin Wall. Most of the other leaders are able to rationalize their power grabs by pointing to MJM. When he’s gone, there will not only be more freedom in the HDem caucus, but in others as well.
- MOON - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 1:22 pm:
RICH
I agree with your conclusion that nothing will change as long as Madigan is speaker.I only hope he lives for a long long time and retains the speakers position. This man never ceases to amaze me! He has more moxie in his little finger than any current member of the house or senate.
Like or dislike his politics, in my humble opinion, he has served the state and his caucus well, and has been good for Illinois!
- KingMadigan - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 1:31 pm:
“Like or dislike his politics, in my humble opinion, he has served the state and his caucus well, and has been good for Illinois!”
oh, yeah, the state is in great shape. Way to go, Mikey! And to say that he’s not the main culprit for the mess we are in, is a cop out. He’s been the main power broker of this state - the real Governor. And if he’d been the actual Governor, he would have been voted out of office a long, long time ago.
- Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 1:36 pm:
MOON,
Given all the problems that await this state next year, I hope you won’t personally have to experience any of the harsh realities. However, if you do, remember what you wrote here today. Friend, the Day of Reckoning will soon be at hand, heaven help us all.
- MOON - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 1:49 pm:
WCW
I will definitely remember what I said, and will stand by it!
If you want solutions to the States fiscal problems then get the GOP to come to the table and work out a reasonable compromise. On more than one occasion Madigan has offerred a solution which means an increase in taxes. The GOP, afraid of the ire of the voters, will not join in raising taxes. That appears to be the only way to get out of this mess. Where is the “statemenship” on the other side of the aisle? The GOP are leaderless and gutless.
I do not look forward to higher taxes but what is your and the GOP’s solution?
- MOON - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 1:57 pm:
KING
If you would come down from the heavens you would realize it takes not only Madigan but a substantial number of house, senate members and the Gov. to resolve our problems. That is the political process and it is called “compromise”. Something Madigan always did under Gov. Thompson, Edgar And Ryan.
I never said the State was in great shape. What is your solution to the problem other than blaming Madigan?
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 3:03 pm:
The whole “Leader Money” issue is silly to the point of distraction. If the leaders don’t take the contributions to themselves, they can just as easily direct donors to the appropriate candidates. There is a bit less control, but not much.
Real reform would be in the form term limits (at least on leadership positions). The power is in the office.
Another helpful reform would be non-partisan redistricting; although it’s impact on leadership might not be much.
- fedup dem - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 3:37 pm:
Rich, your comparision of Speaker madigan’s future departure from the legislature to the fall of the Berlin Wall caused me to recall a conversation I had with a stalwart Houes Democrat with impeccable Regular Organization ties a good decade ago. At that time (this was before Lisa Madigan began her political career) I asked the House member to describe the legislative legacy of Speaker Michael Madigan. The House member could not help but laugh in response, for the legislative lagacy of Madigan was solely the ability to get at least 60 House members to bleat out the name “Madigan” on the roll call vote for Speaker every two years.
Therefore, I hope you understand when I try my best not to puke over your statement.
- CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Nov 3, 09 @ 9:51 pm:
CaptFax & Friends
It has been ovr 10 hours since I asked about your collective vision of the post Madigan Illinois. No one has uttered a peep. No one has told us about an Illinois after those cherished “competive elections”
Does that mean you don’t know, don’t care or that in reality nothing changes?
I’ll take it to mean that Illinois takes a giant step backward when that occurs
Have a great night