* There are some things missing from this AP story…
Gov. Pat Quinn says the state of Illinois will provide $100 million in tax credits to Motorola Mobility as part of a deal with the company to keep its headquarters in the Chicago suburb of Libertyville.
Under the deal announced Friday, the Motorola spinoff will keep a workforce of about 3,000 at the facility. Motorola Mobility designs mobile phones and other related products.
* That $100 million number is pretty astounding until you realize that it will be doled out over 10 years and requires a significant commitment from Motorola…
Motorola Mobility is committing to spend more than $500 million in research and development related to these jobs over the next three years.
* The cash is a tax credit applied to the company’s annual withholding tax liability or its annual corporate income tax liability. However, Gov. Quinn did not announce a corresponding budget cut to make up for the revenue loss. Then again, the revenue loss to the state would’ve been quite big if the company had left - not to mention the hit to the state’s reputation. And Motorola Mobility had been looking elsewhere…
The cell phone maker had been considering moving its head office to more high-profile tech centers, such as Silicon Valley, San Diego or Austin, Texas, since it was spun off from Motorola Inc. earlier this year.
Morningstar analyst Joseph Beaulieu said, “Given that CEO Sanjay Jha has a second home in Southern California and given that the San Francisco area is home to some of the top technology companies in the United States, this is a big win for Illinois.”
Ed Longanecker, executive director of Naperville-based tech trade association TechAmerica, said Illinois’ efforts to keep Motorola Mobility and to create an Illinois Innovation Council are welcome efforts to accelerate technology and economic growth.
* Back-seat passengers under the age of 19 are already required to wear seat belts in Illinois. The House voted yesterday to expand that to everyone…
Back-seat passengers who now can decide whether to buckle up would have to start wearing seat belts under legislation that narrowly passed the House Thursday.
The bill, which squeaked through 61-55 and now heads to the Senate, would add Illinois to the list of 11 other states that require backseat seat-belt usage for all passengers.
“We’ve had people in our area killed and maimed who hadn’t had a seat belt on in the backseat,” said Rep. Mark Beaubien (R-Barrington Hills), the bill’s chief House sponsor. “Totally unnecessary.”
State data was not immediately available after Thursday’s vote. But nationwide, 1,095 back-seat passengers not wearing seat belts died in 2009, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
* The Question: Do you support mandatory back-seat seat belt usage? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.
*** UPDATE 1 *** The Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association have just issued a joint statement. Essentiall, this means that the teachers unions support the Chicago Teachers Union desired changes in the education reform bill, but without the CTU’s way over top rhetoric…
“After months of historic collaboration and bargaining in good faith, the Illinois House can, by making necessary adjustments, ensure that Illinois gets education reform legislation that reflects what was intended and agreed upon in the negotiations.
We are on the precipice of passing some the most serious reforms to education that Illinois has seen in decades, and drafting such legislation is a deliberate process. The coalition that came together remains united in our ultimate objective: to pass reforms that protect the voice of the teacher in the classroom while making our schools better for our kids.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** “Joint statement of Robin Steans, Executive Director of Advance Illinois, Jessica Handy, Policy Director of Stand for Children – Illinois and Jeff Mays, President, Illinois Business Roundtable in response to the Chicago Teachers Union’s removal of support from Illinois Senate Bill 7″…
SB 7 is the same legislation that the Chicago Teachers Union assisted in crafting and openly supported in the Illinois Senate. For more than three months, state senators, school management groups, the State Board of Education, education reform organizations and teachers’ unions- including the Chicago Teachers Union- sat at the same negotiating table and hammered out the specifics of SB 7.
This process was extraordinary for its inclusive and collaborative nature and something which proudly sets Illinois apart from other states.
The proposed language of the bill has been available and under discussion for months. All parties were given the chance to review the final language of SB 7 and, indeed, the Chicago Teachers Union did propose last minute changes, which were incorporated before it was passed unanimously by the Illinois Senate on April 14th.
The Chicago Teachers Union has now removed its support from SB 7 and in doing so, has undermined the good faith in which it was negotiated.
Since passage in the Senate, we have worked with the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, school management groups, and legislators on clean-up language in several areas. We remain committed to continuing to work collaboratively with legislators and stakeholders on this landmark legislation.
In another possible blow to the legislation, House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) is considering an amendment that would shift the cost of teacher pensions, a move that could torpedo the bill’s chances, according to two sources familiar with the confidential talks. The sources requested anonymity because they remain involved in the negotiations.
The amendment would require school districts to levy a separate property tax for teacher pensions, the sources said. The move would shift the burden from the state to local taxpayers. Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) introduced the concept in February.
There are actually two education reform bills (another, cleanup version was passed the day after the first one passed). I think only one of those two will be amended with Madigan’s pension changes. We’ll see.
It would require that a public body – at both the state and local level –muster a three-fifths supermajority vote before pensions for its employees can be enhanced.
“It’s very easy to vote for a bill that increases a pension benefit,” said House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, the amendment’s sponsor. “Everyone would be better served if there were a higher bar regarding pension bills.”
Organizations representing local governments – such as the Illinois Municipal League – signed up in favor of the amendment.
Unions representing public employees lined up in opposition. Steve Preckwinkle of the Illinois Federation of Teachers said the amendment could hamstring pension changes needed to clear up problems instead of enhancing benefits.
* Illinois Democrats Enrage Public-Worker Unions With Drive to Tame Pensions
* Michael Carrigan: Illinois should honor current pensions - Cutting the retirement benefits earned by state workers is unconstitutional and fundamentally unfair.
* Sean Smoot: Society’s promise to public safety workers goes beyond memorials
* Illinois labor launches campaign to protect pensions
* Rep. Lou Lang said yesterday that he thought he had 58 votes going into the debate on his medical marijuana bill. That’s still two votes shy of the 60 required, but Lang thought he might pick up a couple of extra votes during the debate. He was wrong. When all was said and done, he ended up with just 53 votes. However, four members, all Democrats, switched from Yes to No before the roll call was closed. Watch…
Democratic Reps. Acevedo, Reitz, Thapedi and Verschoore all flipped to No at the end when they saw the bill was going down. Thapedi switched back and forth a couple of times.
[Sigh.]
* That vote was seriously disheartening for those of us who believe we need some sane drug laws in this country. The bill established a three-year pilot project. No growing by patients would be allowed. The amount of pot that people could have was reduced to two and a half ounces. A specific list of maladies that could be treated with medical marijuana was in the bill, as well as a limit on the number of dispensaries and who could operate them. You can’t get much tighter than that, although they could lower the amount of pot that patients could purchase and it wouldn’t bother me much. Even some opponents agreed with that. But the rhetoric by some opponents was just ridiculous. “A flawed piece of West Coast marijuana legislation,” said Rep. Rich Morthland. Watch…
You’d think by listening to some of these people that marijuana is some outrageously dangerous drug. When you talk to legislators, quite a few privately admit that they tried weed in college or even high school, or even since then. Yet, they seem fine now. The simple fact is that pot itself doesn’t damage nearly as many lives as being arrested for smoking it. Our last three presidents all admitted to smoking it. The republic has somehow managed to survive. Yet, it’s highly doubtful that any of them would’ve been elected if they had been busted by the cops for giving it a try. What rank hypocrisy this is.
As the bill failed, Jim Champion of Somonauk watched from his wheelchair in the House gallery. He said he was “deflated” by the vote because he has suffered from multiple sclerosis for 23 years and marijuana is the only thing he has used to control his symptoms without horrible side effects.
But because marijuana is illegal, Champion currently is on methadone, the latest in a long list of legal prescriptions. He said he could move to a state like Michigan or California, where medical marijuana is legal, but Illinois is his home and he wants to stay.
During debate, Lang pointed to Champion, a U.S. Army veteran who said he worked with Lang to craft a bill that would pass.
Champion said he often has people come up and thank him for his service, but he feels the thanks aren’t warranted because he has to break the law to use marijuana.
“I feel like a criminal. I don’t feel like an honored veteran,” Champion said. “I don’t, and my state’s doing it to me.”
“At night when I sleep, my knees grind together, and I almost end up turning into a ball. I wake up in the morning and take my pills, and they do nothing,” Champion said. “I take three puffs off a cannabis cigarette, and I am able to separate my legs. I am able to basically get ready in the morning.”
We don’t wish the pain and suffering of AIDS or cancer or multiple sclerosis on any human being.
But we wouldn’t mind one sleepless night of it for the legislators who voted “no” to legalizing medical marijuana in Illinois.
That tally came to 61 on Thursday. That’s how many members of the Illinois House of Representatives are willing to let others suffer needlessly so they can pose and posture that they’re tough on crime. […]
This is a simple matter. They are choosing to put politics above real people who need real help. […]
*** UPDATE 1 *** The House just passed a bill with 66 votes that allows counties to opt out of the ICE program. Rep. Randy Ramey, Jr., who has been a major backer of proposals to get tough on illegal immigration, is, surprisingly enough, a co-sponsor of the bill and spoke in favor of it during debate. Two counties want to opt out after having opted in, and one of those is in his district. The bill also does this…
…provides that as a condition for its continued participation in the “Secure Communities” program, the State of Illinois shall modify its Memorandum of Agreement with ICE to provide that, in line with ICE’s Congressional authorization of identifying “aliens convicted of a crime, sentenced to imprisonment, and who may be deportable,” Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2365 (2007), no Illinois arrest record information regarding any individual may be analyzed by ICE through the “Secure Communities” program unless such individual has been convicted of a criminal offense.
DHS officials confirmed to The Huffington Post that they will still require the state to share fingerprints with immigration enforcement — even though Quinn said he wants to terminate a memorandum of understanding with the agency to share the data.
In making this decision, DHS is flouting the state’s decision to withdraw from the program in favor of more universal immigration enforcement and likely setting the stage for a lawsuit.
Recently, the Illinois Senate approved legislation (Senate Bill 2185) aimed at allowing student immigrants who have a valid taxpayer ID to invest in their college education – this legislation has been the subject of much misinformation on the Internet and in the media.
The bill requires the Illinois Student Assistance Commission to create an Illinois DREAM Fund that will provide scholarships funded entirely from private contributions – no Illinois tax dollars will be directed toward these scholarships. In addition, to be eligible for the program, a student must be a resident of the State of Illinois.
Contrary to some of the misinformation being spread by opponents of the measure, it is not an immigration bill – in no way, shape or form does it grant undocumented immigrants citizenship. Also, contrary to what’s been previously reported, the legislation does not permit driving certificates for undocumented immigrants.
*** UPDATE 4 *** This is what you call doubling down. From the Palatine Tea Party…
Shameful Illinois Republican State Senators
(Palatine, Illinois) - It is a sad day in Illinois when 11 Senate Republicans seek the cover of the leftist media over their ill-advised vote. The Illinois Tea Party outrage at the passage of the Illinois Dream Act through the Illinois Senate has now made the Huffington Post.
These 11 Senators spend tax dollars like drunken sailors on shore leave, and once caught try to spin their way out of a problem they created. The Tea Party and its allies in the Illinois know that Illinois is in a financial crisis of epic proportion.
Once again the Illinois dream act is another spending bill that could adversely affect Illinois citizens. It has and will be the job of Tea Parties throughout the state to hold our elected officials accountable. The actions of these 11 Senators will not soon be forgotten. Many of these 11 call themselves conservatives, yet there is nothing conservative about the Illinois Dream Act.
This is a failure to the citizens of Illinois and these shameful Senators need to be held accountable for their actions. Please keep calling these numbers and keep expressing your contempt at this ill-advised vote.
Republicans that voted YES are: Althoff, Bomke, Brady, Dillard, Duffy, Tom Johnson, Murphy, Radogno, Sandack, Schmidt, Syverson.
Notice how they don’t explain how and why this is allegedly “another spending bill that could adversely affect Illinois citizens.”
[ *** End Of Updates *** ]
* The Palatine Tea Party issued an outraged press release yesterday blasting the Senate Republicans who voted for the Illinois DREAM Act…
An Open Letter to Illinois Republican Senators
The Illinois Republican Senators who voted ‘YES’ to Dream Act SB 2185 are part of the problem in Illinois. Instead of focusing on issues like jobs, taxes and our economy they are more interested in getting votes. It is clear our current elected officials are much more concerned with their reelection than what matters for the citizens of Illinois.
We will Never forget your VOTE!
Republicans that voted YES are: Althoff, Bomke, Brady, Dillard, Duffy, Tom Johnson, Murphy, Radogno, Sandack, Schmidt, Syverson. If you are outraged with their votes, contact them directly
Note, there is a difference between the state version of the DREAM Act and the federal version, which failed during Congress’ lame-duck session late last fall. The state version, unlike the federal version, does not provide a direct path to citizenship. And some of the Republicans state Senators who voted for it feel like they’re being unnecessarily hammered at.
* There are other differences as well. And Sen. Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove) is one of those who feel like they’re being whacked for no good reason. From a press release…
“It is important to clarify that this bill is not an immigration bill. It does not grant any sort of legal citizenship status,” Sandack clarified.
Senate Bill 2185 requires the Illinois Student Assistance Commission to create an Illinois DREAM Fund that will provide scholarships funded entirely from private contributions. A potential recipient must meet residency and educational requirements in order to receive the assistance.
“This legislation specifies that the recipient of educational assistance through the Illinois DREAM Fund have at least one parent who immigrated to the country. This bill is in no way affiliated with the Federal DREAM Act.”
The legislation also provides for educational training for school counselors regarding higher education opportunities for undocumented immigrants, as well as specifying that college savings programs must be made available to those with a valid social security number or taxpayer identification number.
It really isn’t a gigantic bill. That was a huge overreaction by that tea party. The bill is here. It passed the Senate 45-11.
* Meanwhile, you’ve probably already read about this already. I didn’t put it on the blog yesterday because I got busy with other stuff…
Illinois this week became the first state in the country to officially pull out of a program known as Secure Communities, saying it will no longer provide information the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency about illegal immigrants who’ve been arrested.
Governor Pat Quinn’s office cited the deportation of illegal immigrants who were charged with only minor crimes or no crimes at all as a top concern. Quinn spokesperson Brie Callahan says ICE did not follow protocol in the deportations, often removing people from the U.S. before they’d been convicted of any crime.
Yesterday, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn sent a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement notifying the agency that because of its indiscriminate use of the “Secure Communities” deportation program, the State is ending its participation in the program. The letter states “that the implementation of the Secure Communities program in Illinois is contrary to the stated purpose of the MOA… By ICE’s own measure, less than 20% of those who have been deported from Illinois under the program have ever been convicted of a serious crime.” The Governor’s letter concludes, “With this termination, no new counties in Illinois can be activated and those counties that were previously activated… must be deactivated and removed from the Secure Communities program.” […]
The Governor’s letter comes in the wake of mounting criticism of the “Secure Communities” program for what U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California describes as outright deception in its implementation and for the widely reported use of the program to deport people still presumed to be innocent despite the program’s mission of focusing on “convicted dangerous criminals.”
The Illinois legislature is scheduled to weigh in on the program with a pending vote on the Smart Enforcement Act, which would regulate and require reporting on the program.
Nearly a third of all illegal immigrants deported out of Illinois under the program have never been convicted of any crime, the letter stated, citing federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement figures. Quinn’s office suspended the state’s role in the program in November amid concerns about its effectiveness.
“During the suspension, we voiced our concerns to ICE and asked them to prove that Secure Communities can and will be implemented as agreed to,” the governor’s office said in a statement. “After review, we were not satisfied and determined that ICE’s ongoing implementation of Secure Communities is flawed.” […]
“Illinois is without competition the most pro-illegal immigration state in the country, even before this,” said Roy Beck, executive director of the Virginia-based NumbersUSA organization.
However, it wasn’t immediately clear if Quinn’s move would completely end Illinois’ connection to the federal program.
For one, fingerprints of suspects collected by local law enforcement have always been sent to the FBI for checks against criminal history and fingerprint databases, and nothing in Illinois’ notice can stop the FBI from sharing information.
Also, while Illinois’ 26 participating counties rely on state police for the program to work, they could come up with their own systems or work with ICE independently. The letter to ICE said that no new Illinois counties would enroll in the program.
Statistics from the immigration agency showed that nearly one-third of immigrants deported from Illinois under the program had no criminal convictions. It is a civil violation for an immigrant to be in the United States illegally; it is not a crime. [Emphasis added.]
* Related…
* Hispanic Caucus calls on Obama to freeze controversial immigration enforcement program
* Illinois Senate passes DREAM Act - Bill headed for a state House vote
* The fight for the DREAM Act: faltered but not fallen: So far, 10 other states have passed versions of the DREAM Act, extending in-state tuition to undocumented students, including California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.
* Otis McDonald, the plaintiff in the NRA’s successful lawsuit against Chicago’s handgun laws, told Fox Chicago yesterday that Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) committed to him to support the concealed carry bill. Rep. Davis voted “No” yesterday, which the NRA claims is what actually killed the bill. Watch…
Rep. Davis denied saying any such thing. However, I talked to four people yesterday (the NRA’s lobbyist and three NRA members) who told me that Davis did, indeed, say she’d vote for the bill. Here she is talking to McDonald last year at the Statehouse. She called him a “great hero” and appeared supportive of his cause…
* The bill was placed on the order of “Postponed Consideration,” so there is no recorded roll call. But here’s the video of the big board…
* Split among suburban lawmakers dooms concealed-carry bill: Thursday’s Illinois House defeat of a proposal to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons hinged on regional differences, not partisan ones, with lawmakers from the Chicago suburbs holding the swing votes.
* 5:29 pm - The Chicago Teachers Union is backing out of its agreement to support the school reform bill which passed the Senate last month on a unanimous roll call. From a press release…
“Our members have spoken clearly and decisively – they do not like this bill and demand changes to the language inserted during last-minute midnight maneuvers that restricted their collective bargaining rights,” said CTU President Karen Lewis.
CTU’s House of Delegates specifically called for the removal of Section 12(b) which states:
A dispute or impasse over any Section 4.5 subject shall not be resolved through the procedures set forth in this Act, and the Board, mediator, or fact-finder has no jurisdiction over any Section 4.5 subject. The changes made to this subsection (b) by this amendatory Act of the 97th General Assembly are declarative of existing law.
According to CTU attorney Robert Bloch, “The Section 12(b) amendment is a two-sentence atomic bomb that was slipped into the 110-page bill at the last minute. It sabotages union bargaining rights, blocks the Education Labor Board from enforcing the law, halts pending Labor Board trials, and allows Chicago Public Schools to tear up labor contracts it made on school issues found in Section 4.5 which pertain only to Chicago, such as class size, class schedules, pupil assessment policies and now the `length of the work and school day and length of the work and school year’.”
In addition to 12(b), the CTU House of Delegates called out Section 13(a)(2.10) requiring that 75% of all union members in the bargaining unit vote affirmatively to authorize a strike only in Chicago. According to Lewis, “For the rest of the state, that threshold is 51% of voters, not of members. A strike is the last option. It is a serious move. We’ll take the challenge of 75% versus 51%, but of members who participate in the voting process. Imagine if that was the requirement to win a seat in the State legislature?”
“Bargaining in good faith appears to be a bar set too high for these so-called education reformers – Advance Illinois, Stand for Children, Illinois Business Roundtable and their millionaire funders – who joined forces with the mayor-elect to steer the conversation, and the legislation, away from school improvement to an attack on unions and the children and families they serve. When you rob educators’ ability to bargain for true school improvement – safe schools with smaller class sizes, class offerings and how your school day is structured to meet your students’ needs – the quality of education available to all children is put at risk. CPS is an inequitable system. This bill does not change that basic travesty,” said Lewis.
As subscribers know, the unions didn’t know about a couple items in the bill, but everything else - including the provisions they are complaining about today - was well-known by the CTU when the bill passed.
Stand For Children’s chief, Jonah Edelman, has argued these restrictions are necessary because a strike by CTU could be used to block efforts to increase the length of CPS’s school day, an Emanuel administration priority. Recent statements from CTU President Karen Lewis, however, suggest this may be a non-issue — or at least one that can be bargained over the way employers and organized employees do when a contract is up. Lewis told the Tribune editorial board that “she is ‘very open’ to a longer day and year ‘if we’re talking about bringing a rich curriculum back to the public schools. We want art, music, PE, history, science, everything.’”
In a letter to CTU members, Lewis portrayed the deal as a victory over billionaire-backed education “reform” forces that initially pushed legislation which would have gutted tenure and effectively banned teacher strikes. “We successfully made the case that the right to strike, seniority, due process and a solid evaluation system all play an integral role to make possible the promise of democracy, equity and quality in public education,” she wrote to explain why she personally gave the CTU’s endorsement to the legislation. The Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT) and Illinois Education Association (IEA) also backed the legislation, known as SB 7.
Although union leaders and school reformers made their deal late on the night of April 12, Lewis failed to inform delegates of that fact the following day when she addressed the regular monthly meeting of that body via Skype. Other CTU elected officers and members only learned of SB 7 a few hours later when Sen. Lightford entered it into the legislative record. Lewis’ first public statement on the bill came via a CTU press release the following morning.
Thursday, May 5, 2011 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement]
To Illinois legislators:
I would like to tell you my mother’s story. (A picture of us is above.) My mother, Cheryl Rose, was a mentor to all she came in contact with, always giving of herself. She was a hero to many and even in death she is helping others.
She worked in the Casino industry for over 20 years. She never smoked and worked out regularly. Yet she was diagnosed with inoperable Stage 4 Lung Cancer in 2008. We were shocked. The only cause we and the doctors could think of was the secondhand smoke at work. She lost her hair, suffered the indignity of terrible facial sores, the weight loss, the loss of her insurance and eventually the loss of her life.
Have you ever had to hold a parent in your arms as they take their last breath at the young age of 62? What would you do if your own children had to go through this with you? And all this could have been prevented through a comprehensive clean air law!
I am asking you to take a stand with me and my mother and to protect the citizens who elected you and trusted you with their lives.
* The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform has studied campaign finance disclosures for the 2011 campaign cycle and discovered that over 500 large campaign contributions to over 190 campaigns and party committees totaling more than $500,000 escaped public disclosure before election day. Campaigns avoided the disclosure laws by receiving multiple checks from donors at just below the $1,000 level which requires public disclosure within 5 days From the group…
State law requires candidates to reveal donations of $1,000 or more within 5 days on a rolling, year-round basis (two days if it’s within 30- days of an election the candidate is in). ICPR has identified nearly $500,000 in donations during the municipal elections that came from donors who gave $1,000 or more but which were not disclosed until after the elections.
The vast majority of these funds were received by candidates in the municipal elections, though some statewide officials and legislators also received donations from donors who gave more than $1,000 but which were not disclosed.
The problem is that single donations of amounts under $1,000 are not required to be disclosed. Many donors and candidates appear to have structured their donations to ensure that their giving would be under the $1,000 disclosure threshold. Indeed, one candidate has acknowledged structuring his own giving to his campaign in this way, and to counseling his supporters to give in amounts under $1,000 so that he would not have to disclose the donations.
Twenty-one candidate and party committees reported getting two or more donations on the same day from the same donor that were each under the disclosure threshold but would have been subject to disclosure if the money came in a single check. These include Gov. Pat Quinn, Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon, the Senate Democratic Victory Fund, House Republican Leader Tom Cross, and the campaign fund of Chicago Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel.
Chicago for Rahm, the campaign fund of Rahm Emanuel, shielded the most donations with the loophole. He avoided disclosure of $26,000 until after the February 22 election, including $15,375 received from eight donors each of whom gave multiple checks on the same day. […]
Gov. Pat Quinn reported six donations from three different donors, all of them lawyers or law firms, on January 31. Each donor wrote two checks, each for $500. Because the money came in two checks rather than one, Quinn did not need to report the receipts for another two and a half months. [Emphasis added.]
The loophole was placed into state regulations at the last minute by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR), which reviews all regulations before they become effective. The State Board of Elections proposed rules that would have required political committees to aggregate donations for the purpose of supplemental disclosure. JCAR objected, instead reading the statute to require disclosure only of individual checks that were over the threshold. Faced with the prospect of having no regulations in place during the 2011 municipal elections if it insisted on their initial proposed regulations, the State Board of Elections agreed to the change.
* The full analysis is here. A spreadsheet is here.
It turns out that McMenamin brought in $4,500 from the federal campaign fund he used when he made an unsuccessful run for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. House in the 19th Congressional District in 2008. But as a commenter on SJ-R.com pointed out under a story Monday about aldermanic fundraising, McMenamin took the cash in $900 increments. And because new campaign finance reforms have been interpreted to no longer require quick reporting of big donations in their aggregate amount, the public never got word until later. […]
“I didn’t want our opponents to know what sources of funding and what amounts might be there at the outset because that could encourage them to ramp up their own campaigns to a greater extent,” McMenamin said.
He volunteered that the $6,920 he and his wife, LYNN, combined to loan the campaign also came in the same way. Each of them provided two $900 loans, one of $700 and another of $960. He also said that as part of “respecting donors,” he told some contributors they could give in less than $1,000 amounts to avoid quick reporting.
McMenamin said part of the reason for incremental donations was because it was uncertain how much the campaign would cost. He also said filing fewer reports is less complex, and “part of being a good manager is to avoid complexity.”
Illinois charges sales tax and a road infrastructure tax on gas. So Representative Wayne Rosenthal is proposing cutting the sales tax park. He says it will save drivers 20 cents a gallon at the pump. […]
Illinois made a similar move back in 2000. It’s estimated the state lost out on $175 million in revenue back then. Illinois is one of only 7 states that charges a sales tax on gas.
Gasoline sales tax proceeds go into the General Revenue Fund, not the Road Fund.
* The Question: Do you support a temporary (say, 12 months) gasoline sales tax holiday? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
*** UPDATE *** An e-mail the Illinois Chamber of Commerce…
Rich,
We got a glance at the governor’s [workers’ comp] proposal yesterday afternoon. The Chamber will NOT support it. It was terribly disappointing, a lot of soft mush where the details are concerned, especially on medical. We intend to tell them today that they have not been listening closely enough. Frankly, we truly expected a lot more from them. They had better go back to the drawing board and find some backbone. They are hanging almost everything on the 30% fee cut for savings. Most of the other stuff has too much wiggle room and we’ll end up like ‘05. We’re not on their program at all. There are only a couple of items where the business plans are accepted outright as offered.
Also, the governor’s plan has a lot invested in addressing commission issues. Clearly they are deeply invested in trying to get ahead of the scandal so they can claim they’ve addressed the problems when the dust settles. I think they are losing sight of the real issue of WC reforms and too invested in the Commission issues.
Illinois senators Wednesday approved some portions of a new state budget, the opening salvo in what probably will be a protracted struggle to craft a new spending plan for the state.
The Senate didn’t tackle some of the biggest and probably most contentious parts of a budget, like education and human services. […]
One budget bill – Senate Bill 2472 – was defeated. The bill contained budgets for a variety of agencies, including the Historic Preservation Agnecy and Military Affairs. Several Democrats opposed cuts to the Violence Prevention Authority that were also part of the bill.
What will happen to the Senate’s budget bills in the House is anyone’s guess. The House is preparing its own budget that is supposed to be more austere than the one prepared by the Senate. None of that budget has yet been made public.
We’ll see what happens today, but yesterday’s actions were definitely not a good sign.
Republicans complained that the proposal wouldn’t cut spending nearly enough. But they didn’t bother introducing their own legislation for deeper cuts. […]
A hurried review by Senate Republicans concluded the Democratic plan would spend about $360 million less than Quinn has proposed. Republicans said that’s not good enough.
“If we’re going to get to a point where the tax increase is truly temporary, if we’re going to be at a point where we can pay our bills without more borrowing, if we’re going to get on the path to fiscal sanity, we need to do more budget-cutting than this,” said Sen. Matt Murphy, R-Palatine.
* Related and a roundup…
* Advertising against human services cuts may boomerang
* In this corner: Murphy responded the list of GOP cuts offered through press conferences and published for lawmakers was a specific and sufficient guide. Republicans have resisted filing budget legislation.
* Businesses wait while lawmakers talk about workers’ comp
Why did you oppose it before? Why did you switch your position?
You’ll notice that I work on a lot of criminal justice legislation. I used to be a prosecutor [in the Kendall County State’s Attorney’s Office], and my background was in law enforcement, and my initial inclination was that it wasn’t the right thing to do. I also thought the bill was initially written in a broad way. I expressed my concerns to Lou Lang. Now it lists specific illnesses—such as cancer, lupus, and Crone Crohn’s disease—and there are some limits on how the marijuana can be grown and produced. So I think it’s a better bill.
And the more I talked to people and heard their stories, it seemed to me to be an issue of compassion. I talked to people in the medical field, and doctors have told me that in some cases this is really the only thing that works as a pain killer. I didn’t know how we could deny it to people who are suffering. […]
What’s the reaction been like? What have you heard from other Republicans?
I think four or five have said they’re going to vote for it since the changes to the original bill. Overall, people have been pretty positive. Some people have been nasty—like the Illinois Family Institute. But that’s to be expected.
Those four or five new GOP votes could be crucial. We’ll see soon enough.
* Rep. Lou Lang’s changes to his bill also put some former organizational opponents on the sidelines…
The Illinois State Police, Fraternal Order of Police and the Illinois Chamber of Commerce are among recent groups that have now taken a neutral position, a change from their previous opposition to the bill.
Also contributing to our support for this bill is our hope that efforts like this across the country will help push the U.S. Food and Drug and Administration to rethink its policy on the medicinal value of marijuana and push for more research. There currently is a licensed drug on the market, Marinol, which contains a synthetic version of THC, the main therapeutic component of marijuana. But it is regarded as substantially less effective for pain and nausea than natural cannabis and its capsule form is difficult for patients with severe nausea to ingest.
We don’t think smoking is a healthy or precise delivery system for any form of medicine, but until the FDA encourages development of better alternatives, it’s all that is available.
We support this bill while acknowledging that California’s lax and haphazard medical marijuana program has become a joke, allowing just about anyone who wants marijuana to get it. The bill currently in the General Assembly uses the California example as a cautionary tale and carefully avoids its many failures. It’s a mix of compassion and caution that the House and Senate should approve.
Gov. Pat Quinn says it would be “ironic” if the Illinois House legalized concealed carry of firearms on the same day the state honors fallen police officers.
The Chicago Democrat spoke Thursday at a ceremony for police officers killed in the line of duty.
Afterward, he told reporters that letting people carry concealed guns would reduce public safety and make life more difficult for police.
*** UPDATE 2 - 2:40 pm *** This Tweet by a Chicago reporter didn’t check out when I ran it down a couple minutes ago…
Veteran vote counters in IL House: Concealed Carry HB148 unlikely to pass. Sponsor Rep. Phelps now “maybe” on calling it.
Rep. David Phelps just told me that he’s waiting for the bill to be put on the board. “I’m running it today,” he insisted.
Yesterday, opponents claimed that the bill had between 65 and 68 votes or so. Proponents claimed they had the minimum three-fifths majority of 71 lined up. We’ll know who’s right soon enough.
*** UPDATE 5 *** 65-52-1. The bill needed 71 votes. It’s on postponed consideration.
*** UPDATE 6 *** I just got off the phone with an NRA member who spoke to Rep. Monique Davis a couple of months ago in her Springfield office. He says she supported the bill at that time. I’ll have more for subscribers tomorrow.
[Gov. Pat Quinn] told reporters his opposition to the bill goes beyond the veto threat. He said he has called some House Democrats and urged them to vote “no,” setting up a potentially embarrassing defeat for either the governor or the bill’s Democratic sponsors, depending on the result of the vote.
Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, said the governor did not notify Democrats who support concealed carry before issuing his veto threat at a news conference in Chicago on Tuesday.
Asked whether Quinn’s position would affect whether Democrats back the governor on other key issues, Bradley said, “I hear that a lot in the downstate caucus.
“I am not happy about it,” Bradley said, although he said his vote personally is based on the merits of each issue. “I think a lot of us in the downstate caucus would at least have liked to have had the courtesy to know he was going to do it.”
As I told subscribers earlier this week, whatever happens, the governor may very well end up damaged. Either the bill passes and he’s seen as a loser, or the bill fails and conservative Dems become even more furious at him than they are now.
Bottom line: Concealed-carry laws don’t seem to have a significant impact on violence one way or the other. The odds aren’t much greater that you’re going to wind up successfully defending yourself with a gun on the street, or that you’re going to mistakenly or intentionally plug somebody with a bullet. There are cases, though, where licensed holders do commit violence.
Even those who have drafted this bill seem to recognize the potential for mayhem. The bill would not allow people to carry a gun in a school, a college campus, a church, a casino, a racetrack, a stadium, a gated amusement park or, ahem, the General Assembly.
If there is such concern about keeping schools and churches and the House and Senate as gun-free zones … why not playgrounds, malls, hospitals, banks, gas stations, bowling alleys and street festivals? They’re not mentioned in the bill. Headed to the hospital? Strap up and go forth.
Employers could prohibit guns at their workplaces, if they posted signs to that effect, like an old-time saloon warning cowboys to check their six-shooters at the door. Permit-holders still could keep weapons in their cars parked at their workplace, though. How convenient for performance-review time.
Thoughts?
* Related…
* IL business groups taking no position in debate on law to allowed carrying of concealed weapons
* Illinois the epicenter of national debate about gun control
