50 Comments - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:13 pm: Uh oh, we all know what happened when Brady was given money by a veterinarian… - OneMan - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:14 pm: “I have a feeling he’ll be out here a few times before November,” People have a feeling every spring that this is going to be ‘The Year(tm)’ for the Cubs. Has the White House promised you anything? - Vole - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:25 pm: $400 grand from docs to Brady. No medical cost inflation there! What do the docs get in return from Brady? No new taxes? A hypocritic oath? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:25 pm: Vole, it’s 200K. - ShadyBillBrady - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:32 pm: Well, a glance at the officers of the McLean County Medical Society PAC helps connect the dots. Larry Nord, of the Nord family that recently hosted the Bush fundraiser at one of the Nord’s Bloomington Country Club homes and Pliura, a doctor and lawyer who has both run for office and supports several Republican candidates. One wonders, though, if it’s really representative of all the docs in McLean County. - Vole - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:35 pm: Rich, OK. Sorry. Still, $200K does not diminish my point by a half. Another nail in the coffin for my vote at least. - Ravenswood Right Winger - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:36 pm: I laugh at Heather Steans. - ShadyBillBrady - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:36 pm: One also wonders how doctors giving money through a PAC is any less special interest than teachers giving money through a PAC? I personally can’t wait to see the Brady and Plummer D-2’s … - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:37 pm: Did anyone else notice the crowd estimates for NoTaxRushmore’s get together with the TParty in Libertyville ranged from 200 to 500….Since it lasted for 3 hours most reporters could have hand counted the crowd. Gotta wonder what NOTaxRushmore promised the docs? Too bad Michael Steele wasn’t there to share some his clear thinking with the group - Sewanee - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:41 pm: Vole: When IEA bundles a contribution to Gov. Quinn, will you complain that it raises the cost of education? - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:48 pm: Giannoulias: Obama will campaign for me: “I have a feeling he’ll be out here a few times before November,” Giannoulias said I believe Obama is 0 for 4 when he stumped for candidates during the primaries. Maybe Alexi should rethink his position… - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:51 pm: - ShadyBillBrady - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:36 pm: “One also wonders how doctors giving money through a PAC is any less special interest than teachers giving money through a PAC?” Private sector workers are a heck of a lot different than workers in the public sector. The public workers (and their unions) have a built-in conflict of interest. - ShadyBillBrady - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:55 pm: You didn’t answer the question I asked Cincinnatus. But that’s par for the course for you here. I didn’t ask the difference between private sector workers and public sector workers. I asked the difference between one group of people giving part of their income to a PAC to be given to candidates and another group of people giving part of their income to a PAC to be given to a candidate. They could both be considered “special interests”. - wapak - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:56 pm: Glad to see you’re staying on top of the proper work assignments by those Republican candidates who are or have SERVED IN OUR ARMED FORCES. Huge catch there on Adam, keep up the great work! - ShadyBillBrady - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:56 pm: Regarding Kinzinger. I agree with Rich, this “in”/”has” thing doesn’t look like much, especially compared to others recently. I do seem to recall though some dustup over his use of his military background/uniform, etc. previously? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 1:57 pm: Cincinnatus, have you ever heard of Medicaid reimbursements to doctors? - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:00 pm: Cinnci–why do public workers (and their unions) have any more conflict than the private sector? Both have just as great an interest in seeing their policies implemented. Public workers often have LESS opportunity than Private Sector due to government ethics restrictions. - ShadyBillBrady - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:06 pm: DP, clearly it’s okay for corporations and the private sector to make HUGE contributions to candidates and campaigns. They’re just looking out for the regular people. But those teachers and public sector unions better just stay out of politics … they shouldn’t be trying to influence decisions that impact their lives or work. Also, regarding the Kinzinger thing … didn’t he recently (maybe about a month ago) make a statement in support of Mark Kirk and his “embellishments and misrememberings”? In light of that, one might ask if it makes his own look a little worse than it would on its own. Just sayin. - grand old partisan - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:12 pm: “asked the difference between one group of people giving part of their income to a PAC to be given to candidates and another group of people giving part of their income to a PAC to be given to a candidate.” The docs are a group of private citizens exercising their free right to assemble and directly express their political views via a PAC. Public sector employees required to join their union as a condition of employment, and individual members have only indirect control of their PAC’s financial contributions. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:13 pm: GOP, what you’re missing here is that this PAC money didn’t come from individual contributors. It came from the local Medical Society’s budget. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:19 pm: D.P. Gumby, The public sector unions take taxpayer money to pay their salaries and via union dues and use the money to lobby legislators that determine their compensation and benefits. It is very difficult to opt out of the portion of union dues used for these purposes (if the members even are aware that they can). This would be the same as private employees getting a say in the ownership of their companies. A recent economic study has looked at several sets of data and concluded that no matter how you deconstruct the data, and no matter how you account for the differences in localities and cost of living, public sector employees make an average of 12% more than their private sector counterparts. As a wise man said, “But those teachers and public sector unions better just stay out of politics … they shouldn’t be trying to influence decisions that impact their lives or work.” - ShadyBillBrady (above). Rich, tangentially I can see your point, however, the conflict of interest is of a much different degree. The doctors do not work for the government, but choose to accept reimbursements for Medicaid. An ever increasing percentage of doctors are choosing not to accept Medicaid payments. - ShadyBillBrady - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:19 pm: Oh, but Rich, I’m sure that every individual in that group of private citizens had direct control of that PAC financial contribution And for the record. personally, until and unless the laws say otherwie, I’m ok with both groups using PACs to contribute. I’m just not okay with hyperpartisan hypocrisy on the issue. - grand old partisan - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:40 pm: I understand that, Rich. So, yes, ‘Shady,’ I was wrong to suggest – without knowing for sure – how much influence individual docs in the society had on PAC decisions. But my point still stands: a doc who is unhappy with the contributions to Brady can simply decide to drop out of the society without having to quit his or her job; teachers, and other public sector employees, do not have that right. Are they both “special interests?” Of course. So, on the county of “hyperpartisan hypocrisy,” you are 100% right, ‘Shady.’ But Brady is neither the first politician to contradict himself on “special interests,” nor the worst offender. “Special interests” is one of those meaningless buzz words that almost all politicians use as a dirty word for interests that support their opponents. I’m pretty sure that if you asked him, Pat Quinn would say that he was against “special interests” as well, even though he has taken lots of moneys from unions, which you helpfully pointed out is just as much a ‘special interest’ as corporate/business support. So my question to you is why is Brady’s hypocrisy more bothersome to you than Quinn’s?? - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:43 pm: Reading ShadyBillBrady makes me wonder if he was HonestRodBlagojevich over the past eight years. I guess if you have to start small, might as well be Brady. - ShadyBillBrady - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:43 pm: GOP, I accept your apology. Was your question == So my question to you is why is Brady’s hypocrisy more bothersome to you than Quinn’s?? == directed to me? If so, easy answer. Hypocrisy from anyone bothers me. Why does Brady’s bother me more? Because I know him. - dave - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:45 pm: A recent economic study has looked at several sets of data and concluded that no matter how you deconstruct the data, and no matter how you account for the differences in localities and cost of living, public sector employees make an average of 12% more than their private sector counterparts. Source? Because the recent reports/studies that I have seen recently said nothing of the sort. - GetOverIt - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:48 pm: Forest from the trees? We’re talking about free speech ladies and gents. I don’t care if you are an employee of a private or public entity, everyone has a right to an opinion, and to voice it via union representation or a PAC. So if doctors downstate want to support Brady, so be it. If the teachers want to support a union to communicate and effectuate their concerns, so be it. Get over it. - ShadyBillBrady - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:48 pm: Dave, I agree … in fact, one recent study conducted over 20 years said just the opposite. I’d also like to see the source. And VM, nope, just ShadyBillBrady. - the Patriot - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:50 pm: I have never been a fan of big dollars for campaigns coming from one source for anyone. But let’s be fair. The money the trial lawyers will funnel to democrats through various organizations will far outweigh what Brady will get from the docs. I have a feeling that if Quinn promised to take no trial lawyer money, Brady would gladly not take a dime from doctors. - Son of Ben - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 2:52 pm: Yeah, the doctors have an interest like the teachers. You could argue their interest is proportionate to the amount of revenue derived from state reimbursement. Further, you can argue their interest is substantial if that interest is high enough to cause their practice to fail if that state pipe stops flowing. However, the revenue interest of the McLean doctors can’t be said to be as substantial and nakedly self-serving as the teachers (100% of their salary comes from the taxpayer), nor is that interest as emeshed with the existing power structure in Springfield, or diluted under union hegemony. So a few docs want to ante up for the big fight in November, and so a few of them voted for Bush (the horror!). Big deal. - ShadyBillBrady - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 3:12 pm: Patriot, if you really believe that ==if Quinn promised to take no trial lawyer money, Brady would gladly not take a dime from doctors== then you might be crazy. And of course Son of Ben, if we want to pursue your argument of “proportionality”, well then what about all those teachers from the majority of Illinois districts who get a very small portion of their funding from the State and almost all of it from local property taxes? I agree with you … as long as we apply the “big deal” mantra to all groups equally. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Brady made it plainly clear in the primary, on the issue of union money, that he’d gladly take money from anyone that wanted to give it to him. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 3:13 pm: Rich, the NYT told me that IL does not pay bills, that would include Medicaid, True? - Ozzie - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 3:14 pm: If a doc belongs to the local med society I believe there is a tax write off as a necesaary business expense. When some of that money is funneled through to a PAC and then to a candidate that changes things at the front end. There may be a big tax problem here and we may not have heard the last of this. - Son of Ben - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 4:05 pm: Fair enough Shady. I would also add that muncipalities and school districts are creatures of state law. Thus, regardless of which bank the money comes from, the collective will of a majority of state legislators can dramatically change that reality for the teachers. Finally, I agree with you on application of the big deal mantra, save for the rare scenario when it’s something like the Teamsters/McPier contribution and the candidate uses his power as an elected official to hold up legislation with near unanimous support, prodding his own party to lead the charge in overriding his veto. Then, in this hypothetical, big contributions become big deals. - Berkeley Bear - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 4:21 pm: Wumpus, Illinois has a sad history of holding off Medicaid payments for several months every year when there’s a shortfall in state revenue. Generally the state pays in the end because failing to do so threatens the Federal matching funds, which would make the situation even worse, but providers have to plan on not getting paid for several months, especially in the spring. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 6:00 pm: Brady apparently golfs with the right hometown doctors. Sweet pickup. - Yeahright - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 8:27 pm: Shady from reading your posts you know nothing about Brady. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 8:30 pm: -dave: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303828304575180421298413374.html?mod=rss_opinion_main - Amuzing Myself - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 10:31 pm: Shady, Considering your past “relationship” with Brady, claiming some sort of righteous indignation on policy or ethical grounds rings pretty hollow. Just sayin’… - returning dog - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 10:42 pm: Cincinnatus - Your article refers only to federal employees. That leaves out a significant segment of public sector workers - teachers, and state, county and municipal. - ShadyBillBrady - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 11:17 pm: Amuzing: Huh? - Spec ops guy myself - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 11:47 pm: I have been following Kinzinger’s campaign. I actually served with him in AFSOC, and I can tell you he is telling the truth. Im actually shocked and offended that his service has become an “issue.” Actually I think there is another story here…who is spreading this misinformation? - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 12:36 am: =Actually I think there is another story here…who is spreading this misinformation?= Whooooooooooooooooo cares?!!! The guy’s HAWT, I tell you. HAWT! *raises wineglass* (That should explain that last outburst–thank you VERY much.) - Liandro - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 12:37 am: Military awards and service are very tricky to define/describe, which is part of why so many veterans running for public office get attacked for wording. Sounds like Kizinger was attached to a Special Ops unit, doing Spec Ops stuff, for multiple short tours. For all purposes, he WAS spec ops during that time. But, as the public affairs personnel pointed out, it is technically wrong to phrase it that way. Example: If I get attached to the 101 Airborne, and go out convoying with them and taking fire, etc, I can wear their combat patch. But, technically, I can’t say I was “in” the 101st, even though I was. Why? Because, according to military structure, I was still part of my home unit (in my case an engineer unit). On the other hand my brother was actually “in” the 101st. So even if we served during the same time, and did the same things, technically I served “with” the 101st and he served “in” the 101st, but we both could wear their combat patch. If none of that makes sense, don’t worry: that’s military bureaucracy for you. Bottom line is Kizinger did the things he said he did, but his phrasing had to get fine-tuned for intense scrutiny that comes with federal office. - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 7:50 am: “- returning dog - Tuesday, Jul 6, 10 @ 10:42 pm: Cincinnatus - Your article refers only to federal employees. That leaves out a significant segment of public sector workers - teachers, and state, county and municipal.” Trends are the same. See: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-5.pdf - dave - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 7:52 am: Cincinnatus - this has already been pointed out above, but do you really not understand the difference between federal workers and all public workers? You have to be kidding me. Find me a source that shows that all public workers make more than in the private sector. Even better, find me a source that shows that IL public workers make more than they would in the private sector. I’ll be waiting anxiously… - just sayin' - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 8:39 am: I’m reminded of the vet in Brady’s district who wanted the big gas chamber for strays. - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 8:43 am: - dave - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 7:52 am: Cincinnatus - this has already been pointed out above, but do you really not understand the difference between federal workers and all public workers? You have to be kidding me. Find me a source that shows that all public workers make more than in the private sector. Even better, find me a source that shows that IL public workers make more than they would in the private sector. I’ll be waiting anxiously… I suggest you read the article more carefully. Some of the tables contained therein will give you the exact information you are asking. The second link talks about state and local employees only and the author describes how he got his number (subtracting federal union employees from all union public service employees using BLS data). There is an extremely interesting table that shows the midwest (including Illinois) has a public sector compensation to private sector compensation ratio of 1.61. This means that the public sector compensation package is WAY bigger than the private sector compensation. So, what is it you say I don’t understand? And obviously, I am the one that is waiting anxiously, for you to take a minute to try and understand the report. I’ll keep a fire extinguisher handy in case your brain overheats. - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 9:44 am: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/07/high-profile-dems-helpful.html Interesting polling data on whether or not Obama or Clinton help a candidate’s chances. Alexi, beware… - dave - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:44 pm: As I said in a different thread, the Cato “study” is a joke. It doesn’t control for anything meaningful at all, including job titles, qualifications, education, etc. It is comparing apples and oranges. It is completely meaningless. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.