Question of the day - Golden Horseshoe Awards
Monday, Dec 17, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Golden Horseshoe Award for Best Democratic State Representative goes to Rep. Elaine Nekritz…
For those of us exasperated by legislators who play it safe and duck tough issues to get re-elected, she shows another way to lead.
Rep. Nekritz has proven that an elected official can boldly make tough choices, stand up as a responsible guardian of the state and be re-elected. Regardless, she just couldn’t be any other way.
She’s immensely loved in her district, and takes on the most pressing issues in the state with grace, intelligence, stamina and the kind of optimism that comes from being capable and reliable.
As evidence, she has taken on: pension reform, led the finding of fact for the Derrick Smith expulsion, and got a bill through the House to allow the recording of on-duty police officers.
She voted to raise taxes because it had to be done, but then also was one of the only legislators to vote for facility closures because it had to be done. (Even the “cut-all-government” Republicans could not bring themselves to do that.) Without blinking an eye, she is openly smart-on-crime and supportive of criminal justice reform.
Her campaign slogan was “She’s honestly different” and it is the honest truth
* Runner-up goes to Rep. Greg Harris…
Greg Harris IS a star. Harris understands the Process, can convey that Process to his District Constituents, and to Groups that Greg is advocating, all the while working the “levers” to get the task at hand completed.
Greg Harris is a work horse that has the temperature of the General Assembly clocked like few do. Harris can count noses. Harris knows where “noses” can be had, and works hard to build coalitions, not just voting blocks, to ensure whatever he is advocating has the necessary support to give the votes a valid foundation to withstand scrutiny.
While some may disagree with Greg Harris, they all know it will be difficult to outwork him on an issue, and almost impossible to outmanuever him, as Harris has an exceptional grasp of the workings of the General Assembly and the complete understanding of the interworkings of the politics of Springfield.
Freshman members coming in January would be very wise to talk to this “STAR” who passed “rising” a while back.
Freshman Rep. Kelly Cassidy got a lot of votes and earns an honorable mention.
* The Golden Horseshoe Award for Best Republican State Representative goes to Rep. Jim Durkin…
Being in the Minority Party in any legislative body, it is difficult at times to be seen as “shining” or “the best” when you may be shut out of your goals. So, looking for Outstanding state Representative, Republican, you may have to look at different criteria.
Jim Durkin is seen, and known, as the person his Caucus looks to for leadership, be it as a Manager during the Smith removal, or as the touchstone for his Caucus as they advocate the “counter” to the House Majority.
Durkin is known to be a strong advocate for those who need a voice. As a legislator, Jim Durkin has leaned on his Prosecutor’s background to give clarity to muddied issues when emotions run high.
Jim Durkin’s leadership on the policy of the Caucus is seen in the manner the Caucus looks to make the arguement, especially when discussing Criminal Law. And it is not surprising that you will find others sitting across the aisle asking Jim Durkin’s opinion.
Jim Durkin has earned this Golden Horseshoe for the hard work and dedication he has shown. As Jim Durkin sits in the Minority, a vast majority of members, sitting on both sides of the aisle, look to Jim Durkin to get the benefit of his counsel, and his knowledge that has benefitted the entire House, not just the House Republicans.
* Runner-up is Rep. David Harris…
Harris has been out front on budget negotiations, and on pension reform, and focuses not on political party loyalty or leadership, but rather on what will work for the state. He used to try to negotiate between Sunni, Shia, and Kurd factions in Baghdad. That’s almost prepared him for dealing in Springfield.
* OK, on to today’s categories…
* Best Democratic State Senator
* Best Republican State Senator
Make sure to fully explain your vote or I won’t even bother to count your nomination. Thanks.
30 Comments
|
Committee launches Schock probe
Monday, Dec 17, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The US House Ethics Committee announced Friday that it’s investigating Congressman Aaron Schock…
The chairman and ranking member of the House Ethics Committee, in making the disclosure Friday, said the panel would “announce its course of action” on or before next Jan. 28.
Steve Dutton, Schock’s spokesman, told the Tribune that the ethics review involved super PAC money.
That appeared to refer to reports that Schock solicited a $25,000 contribution from Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s political action committee to help fund a super PAC that favored Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., in a March primary against Rep. Don Manzullo, R-Ill.
The Federal Election Commission is examining that conduct because federal officeholders may seek a maximum donation of $5,000 for a super PAC.
* Schock talked to his home town paper…
In an interview Friday evening, Schock described the news as frustratingly routine.
“When somebody files a complaint against you, it takes several years to go through the process,” the Peoria Republican said, noting “it’s not a new complaint, it’s not a new report,” but merely the next phase of an ongoing investigation.
He said the issue relates to the $25,000 donation he sought from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to a super PAC aiding Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Manteno during his successful primary campaign against Rep. Don Manzullo of Egan. […]
A similar complaint with the Federal Election Commission by two good-government groups — Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center — claims Schock was only allowed by law to seek a $5,000 donation.
* More…
Ethics officials would not discuss whether the super PAC was a focus of the investigation — or the sole focus. Schock also has come under scrutiny over his spending of campaign money for meals and hotels. Dutton said, however, the probe had nothing to do with Schock’s campaign spending, including a hotel bill from Greece that was reported this year by a watchdog group.
After Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington detailed Schock’s use of campaign dollars, he reimbursed his war chest for a $1,136 stay in 2009 at the Hotel Grande Bretagne, a luxury hotel in Athens. Federal election law does not allow the use of campaign money for vacations.
At the time of CREW’s disclosure, Schock aide Steven Shearer called payment for the Greek hotel a “mistake.” He said a credit card receipt for the hotel had erroneously been “included with a stack of other legitimate campaign expenses.”
Man, that Greek hotel will make one heckuva TV ad if Schock runs for governor.
Your thoughts on all of this?
24 Comments
|
Today’s number: $16.2 million
Monday, Dec 17, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From Crain’s…
Commonwealth Edison Co. spent big — very big — to win passage last year of its controversial “smart grid” law. The act permits the electric utility to raise its rates annually via a formula as it pursues a 10-year, $2.6 billion grid modernization program featuring smart meters in every home and business.
ComEd may be back in Springfield, lobbying lawmakers to force state utility regulators to interpret the law more favorably to the utility and boost its revenue further.
* And the accompanying chart…
Ameren’s expenses were $3.4 million.
Keep in mind that lobbying expenses are not directly financed by ratepayers.
* Related…
* Cable TV, satellite TV industries embroiled in fight over fees
* Illinois rings up $1M from video gambling in November
13 Comments
|
Who invented Squeezy?
Monday, Dec 17, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Kurt Erickson filed a FOIA request in an attempt to find out who in the governor’s office came up with the Squeezy the Pension Python idea. He had mixed results…
According to a review of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, “Squeezy the Pension Python” first appeared in an email exchange between top Quinn aides in mid-September.
It was kept under wraps for two months until the governor’s office unveiled his so-called “grass roots” education effort in November.
The records don’t show much else, however. The birth of “Squeezy” was apparently so secretive that Quinn’s attorneys blocked out information that might reveal exactly who came up with the concept.
We can tell you this: The first email to mention the name “Squeezy” came from one of Quinn’s longtime sidekicks: Claude Walker.
Walker served with Quinn during his days as state treasurer and rejoined his old boss in 2010 to head a new program designed to promote the state’s waterways. I dubbed Walker the state’s “canoe czar” and the name stuck. […]
Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson says the creation of “Squeezy” was a team effort.
Anderson then went on to throw former budget director David Vaught under the bus because Vaught used the term “squeeze” to describe the pension impact on the state budget.
* Related…
* Shifting the cost of teachers’ pensions could lead to cuts
* Illinois’ really big fiscal crisis: infrastructure expenses: If Illinois’ enormous pension costs trouble your sleep, the even bigger tab for fixing the state’s infrastructure will keep you up all night. The crumbling highways, rail lines, bridges and water systems that underpin our economy will need more than $300 billion in repairs over the next 30 years, according to a report released by the Civic Federation of Chicago a few weeks ago. The figure is in line with estimates by other groups that have studied the issue.
* Whitley: Big policy issues facing state in 2013
29 Comments
|
A look ahead
Monday, Dec 17, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* As I told subscribers this morning, the Poynter Institute put together a very informative page for journalists about school shootings. Click here to read it and an accompanying piece about covering mental health issues before you read my weekly syndicated newspaper column…
Before Friday’s horrific school shooting in Connecticut, people on both sides of Illinois’ concealed-carry debate were saying privately that they did not expect Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal her major loss at the hands of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court in Chicago voted 2-1 to declare Illinois’ strict laws on carrying guns unconstitutional and gave the General Assembly 180 days to come up with a new, less restrictive law.
“A right to bear arms … implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home,” the majority opinion decreed, saying Illinois had failed to show that bans on concealed carry and other restrictions on gun owners had any positive effect.
Appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court could be harmful to the anti-gun cause, both sides admitted last week. New York’s wealthy, influential and strongly anti-gun mayor, Michael Bloomberg, could oppose an appeal out of fear that the conservative Supreme Court justices wouldn’t preserve New York’s law, which allows him to keep most concealed guns off the city’s streets.
Other states that allow limited concealed carry, such as Maryland and California, will also probably oppose an appeal for the same reason. They don’t trust that the Supreme Court would uphold their restrictive laws.
This isn’t to say that Madigan won’t appeal. Her office has been publicly silent since last week’s appeals court ruling. In the wake of the grade school massacre, she may feel increasing pressure to file an appeal. Then again, she could just kick this to the General Assembly.
The National Rifle Association claims it has enough votes to block any attempt to enact a concealed-carry law in Illinois that is, in its opinion, too restrictive. Proposals to require million-dollar insurance policies, difficult training procedures or other significant restrictions are “off the table,” Todd Vandermyde, the NRA’s lobbyist, said.
There’s no doubt that the pro-gun side has built clear majorities in both chambers in favor of concealed carry. A ruling from Madigan’s father, House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), however, required the pro-gunners to find three-fifths majorities because the legislation would override local ordinances. The NRA is just shy of that in the House and barely at the threshold in the Senate.
But the NRA’s majorities were built on promises to restrict the right to carry guns to specific places and to mandate strenuous training. Schools would be off limits, for instance. Training would be required to obtain a gun permit. Those provisions were put into the last bill the NRA pushed as a way to attract more votes.
The question now becomes whether the NRA can hold on to its majorities in the Legislature in the face of a strong and panicked push by the other side to pass a restrictive bill in line with last week’s court opinion. The ruling specifically mentioned as reasonable keeping guns out of schools, government buildings and businesses that don’t want them and further stated that “a person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others.”
But Vandermyde said gun-rights supporters came out of the woodwork after the appeals court decision was handed down. He claimed that several black legislators had previously confided that they’d like to vote for concealed carry but couldn’t. Now, Vandermyde said, many of them pledged to side with the NRA.
The NRA’s coalition may be tough to hold together, however, if Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Gov. Pat Quinn, Speaker Madigan and the strongly anti-gun Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) team up to pass a restrictive concealed-carry bill. Several legislators who might like to support concealed carry also have jobs with the city and state or have loved ones who do.
But the NRA and Vandermyde don’t actually have to pass a bill. They just have to make sure that the other side cannot. And anyone who has been around the legislation process for more than a minute knows that killing a bill is always a lot easier than passing one.
If the NRA successfully delays legislative action until the 180-day time limit has passed, then, barring any further delays, the state’s current gun restrictions would be declared unenforceable.
Despite last week’s mass shooting, I wouldn’t bet too much money against the gun guys at the moment.
* And gun control wasn’t even mentioned in last weekend’s Democratic 2nd Congressional District slating attempt, which irked Dan Mihalopoulos…
If the Democratic bosses had bothered to ask some questions about gun control, they might have found more reason to sort out a favorite.
State Sen. Toi Hutchinson of Olympia Fields voted with the National Rifle Association’s positions 92 percent of the time and has enjoyed the Illinois State Rifle Association’s endorsement. Rival Deborah Halvorson, a former congresswoman from Crete, also had NRA backing.
At the other end of the spectrum were Robin Kelly (a lifetime grade of F from the NRA for her votes while a state lawmaker) and the pistol-packing Trotter (only voted with the pro-gun lobby 33 percent of the time).
The top three trending topics on Twitter on Saturday were Newtown, #NRA and #GunLawsAreAJoke. But will the anger over the shootings and at the rise in gun violence in Chicago be sustained? Will it translate into Democratic voters who demand to know the gun-control positions of the candidates before the Feb. 26 primary?
They clearly can’t leave that job to Beavers or to the party bosses.
* Related…
* Lisa Madigan’s political aspirations could hinge on concealed carry
* Oh, murder tree - Oh, murder tree…
* Editorial: A gun battle worth fighting
156 Comments
|
Comments Off
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com Visit our advertisers...
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
|
Hosted by MCS
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax
Advertise Here
Mobile Version
Contact Rich Miller
|