Former Illinois governor George Ryan is on home confinement, but in an I-Team exclusive photo, he can be seen having dinner at a restaurant more than 30 miles from home.
Ryan is supposed to be spending the next six and a half months confined to his home in Kankakee. So, imagine the shock and awe that overcame some patrons in a popular south suburban restaurant when they saw the ex-governor sitting at a table with five other people having Sunday dinner.
The restaurant is 31 miles away from Ryan’s home, a 45-minute drive for the corrupt ex-governor who is on home confinement. […]
Late Sunday afternoon, at an Italian restaurant in Frankfort, the disgraced governor walked in the front door and sat down in what the manager calls “a secluded table.” Ryan, seen in a photo with his daughter-in-law, Amy, who made the reservation, dined with son George Ryan Jr. and two friends.
When contacted by telephone Monday afternoon, the I-Team asked Ryan, “We have a photo of you dining with some people last night at a restaurant in Frankfort. How could that happen?” Ryan, after lengthy pause, said, “I have no comment about anything.”
His attorney, fellow former Gov. Jim Thompson, told WBBM Newsradio’s Regine Schlesinger the terms of Ryan’s home confinement allow him to leave the house on weekends, with permission.
“The notion that he is somehow getting special privileges is crazy,” Thompson said.
He said the rules are clear for a low-risk prisoner like Ryan.
“On the weekends, you are allowed six hours on Saturday, or six hours on Sunday, with two hours additional for church, as long as you tell the Bureau of Prisons ahead of time where you’re going,” Thompson said.
The rules for weekend leaves also require anyone on home confinement to go to a public place, not someone’s home, and not a bar or tavern.
Chief Probation Officer Phillips says that there is no rule affording 6 hours of public outings and church service attendance to all prisoners but that such arrangements may made on a per-prisoner basis. She would not provide the terms of Ryan’s home confinement and those details are not normally made public or in court records.
“Inmates on home confinement are granted permission to leave their home for a variety of purposes” Traci Billingsley, chief spokesperson for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons in Washington, said.
“Information pertaining to individual requests by individual inmates are not a part of the public record and would not be available to you. For this reason I cannot confirm whether Mr. Ryan’s reported absence from the home was authorized by the BOP,” she said.
* The Question: Is it time to just move on from George Ryan? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
* By the way, the US Supreme Court denied Ryan’s appeal yesterday. Ryan hoped to have his conviction overturned…
The former governor wanted them to reconsider his conviction based on a 2010 decision saying honest service fraud requires bribery and kickbacks. Ryan’s lawyers said the jury instructions at his trial were wrong, and that it was never proven that he took bribes. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn his conviction, and the high court refused to reconsider that decision.
“We need to be upset about what’s going on in Washington. We need to be upset about what’s going on in Illinois. But we have to do it in a way that’s not about dividing our country. Ronald Reagan won in 1980 not because he stood on national TV and screamed at Jimmy Carter, talked about how terrible everything was and tried to scare the American people. He won because he had a vision of the America he wanted to live in and the America that he believed could exist under his leadership,” Kinzinger said.
He continued, adding that the general public sees Republicans in a negative light and that needs to change.
“What I’ve seen lately that concerns me, and I’m just being honest, is that the new definition of conservatism in this country is not any more about what you believe, it’s about who’s the loudest and who’s the angriest. And whoever’s on national TV screaming the most is probably the biggest offender of conservatism. That’s what I think people have started to see,” he said.
Kinzinger said that the Republicans lost a lot of ground in the 2012 election, but he’s hoping the party can regain some of its momentum in the coming years.
“Thirty-eight percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans, which means that in order to win national elections … if we want to be a minority party forever, we’re on the right track. If we want to win national elections, we need to take 13 percent and switch them from the ‘I don’t call myself a Republican’ column to ‘You know what? I’m going to be a Republican today.’ They do that by talking about the optimistic hope for our future,” Kinzinger said.
It’s even worse in Illinois. The recent Paul Simon Institute poll found that just 22.3 percent identified themselves as Republicans. Last fall’s PPP poll had it at 26 percent.
Prosecutors in Chicago are telling state lawmakers they can essentially ignore a federal court ruling and not legalize concealed carry in Illinois.
The Illinois House on Tuesday held the first of two statewide hearings on how to legally allow people to carry a gun in the state. Illinois is the only state in the nation that bars anyone from carrying a pistol outside their home. In December, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said Illinois must change that.
But Paul Castiglione, policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, told lawmakers there is no need for a new law.
“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional,” Castiglione told lawmakers Tuesday. “I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”
“Until the Supreme Court of the United States has spoken, state courts are not precluded from exercising their own judgments on federal constitutional measures,” said Paul Castiglione, representing the Cook County state’s attorney’s office. “Because lower federal courts exercise no appellate jurisdiction over state courts, decisions of lower federal courts are not conclusive on state courts.”
“After 180 days, anyone who decided, for example, to walk down Michigan Avenue in Chicago carrying an AK-15 would be subject to arrest and prosecution for violating the [Unlawful Use of Weapons Act,]” said Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Paul Castiglione. He said the Cook County state’s attorney’s office intends to enforce the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons statute, which outlaws carrying guns in public, after the deadline, unless lawmakers change it or the Illinois Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. “The lower federal courts, either the district courts or the courts of appeal, cannot tell the Illinois Supreme court how to rule or whether or not that law is constitutional. The only court that can resolve that split is the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The Illinois Supreme Court is currently reviewing another carry case, People v. Aguilar. “The real trigger for when this committee and this legislature has to act, I submit, is if and when the Illinois Supreme Court ever decides that the [Unlawful Use of Weapons] statute is unconstitutional.”
Rep. Mike Zalewski, a former prosecutor, immediately questioned Castiglione’s suggestion that lawmakers are not under a “ticking clock” to act, saying the Alvarez aide “kind of dropped a pretty big rhetorical bomb on some of us.”
“We should tread carefully, tread lightly on that specific conclusion because we’re charged with passing a constitutional statute down here in the next 60 to 90 days or so,” said Zalewski, D-Chicago.
Ronald Rotunda, an expert on the Illinois Constitution, sided with Zalewski.
“Whenever the 7th Circuit and the Illinois Supreme Court have a conflict, the federal court will win,” said Rotunda, a constitutional law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.
The National Rifle Association says it’s non-negotiable:
Public-transportation users should to be allowed to carry guns on buses and trains.
The question surfaced during a hearing Tuesday aimed at meeting a federal court demand to draw up legislation permitting Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons. A top NRA lobbyist said he won’t bend on allowing bus and train riders to arm themselves.
“I don’t believe people who need public transportation to get around should be prohibited from exercising their constitutional right,” said lobbyist Todd Vandermyde, who later questioned the contradiction of a motorist being allowed to carry a gun in their vehicle but not a mass transit customer. […]
Last week, the leaders of the Chicago Transit Authority, Regional Transportation Authority, Metra, Pace and others wrote to House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), calling the idea dangerous and warning it could lead to “catastrophic” results.
“The issue is that you’re dealing with a confined space where the public expects some safety,” Jordan Matyas, the RTA’s chief of staff, told the Sun-Times. “This is just going to lead to problems, and it will lead to what we believe is a lack of security and safety and possibly reduce ridership.”
I would hope the RTA had compiled some stats from other states with concealed carry to back up their nightmare scenario, but I doubt they do.
*** UPDATE 1 *** Gov Pat Quinn told reporters today that the state needs to comply with the federal appellate court order.
Quinn added, however, that he doesn’t want people carrying concealed weapons on mass transit.
Finally, the State and the City cannot evade the Landry injunction by arguing that the state courts of Illinois are not bound by decisions of lower federal courts.
As a general rule, the interpretation given to Illinois statutes by the lower federal courts is not conclusive on the courts of this state. Hanrahan v. Williams, 174 Ill.2d 268, 277, 220 Ill.Dec. 339, 673 N.E.2d 251 (1996). That rule, however, is addressed to the situation where the federal court’s decision is being invoked as precedent on a point of law. In the case before us, the Landry decision is not being cited for its legal analysis. Whether the federal court’s analysis is correct is irrelevant.
Whatever one thinks of the federal district court’s reasoning, its decision is binding because it constitutes a valid judgment by a duly-constituted tribunal on the same question presented here and prohibits the same prosecuting officials involved in this case from enforcing the same statute against the same class of defendants to which the defendant in this case belongs.
Former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. pleaded guilty Wednesday in a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C., to conspiring to illegally spend about $750,000 in campaign money on personal uses, including a Rolex, pricey memorabilia, furs and other luxury items.
“For years I lived off my campaign. I used money that should have been for campaign purposes for personal purposes,” Jackson said in court, as he broke down several times, getting tissues from his lawyers.
In explaining his decision to plead guilty, Jackson said: “I have no interest in wasting the taxpayers’ time or their money.”
“I’m guilty, your honor,” Jackson said.
“Tell everybody I’m sorry I let them down,” he said outside the courtroom.
He was an effective congressman, and he could’ve continued to be one for many years to come. But he just didn’t ever think that campaign laws applied to him. He constantly sent out campaign press releases from his government office, then come to find out he was using campaign cash to buy Michael Jackson memorabilia, among other things.
* The Sun-Times has a ScribbleLive thingy running today…
Keep an eye on that because Sandi Jackson is expected to plead guilty today, too. There will also be a press conference by the US Attorney.
Jackson Jr. entered a negotiated plea of guilty on one felony count of conspiracy to commit false statements, wire fraud and mail fraud. Prosecutors say he spent campaign contributions to buy luxury items, memorabilia and other goods. […]
Attorneys familiar with public corruption investigations said the amount of campaign cash that prosecutors said was converted to personal use in this case is the largest of any that they can remember. […]
Prosecutors accused Jackson Jr. of improper spending of campaign cash for a $43,350 men’s Rolex watch, nearly $9,600 in children’s furniture and $5,150 in cashmere clothing and furs. She is charged with filing false tax returns for six years, most recently calendar year 2011.
Prosecutors are seeking a $750,000 judgment against Jackson Jr. and the forfeiture of thousands of dollars of goods he purchased, including cashmere clothing, furs and an array of memorabilia from celebrities including Michael Jackson, Bruce Lee and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
* Back on February 10th, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Robin Kelly in the 2nd Congressional District, highlighting her integrity…
Throughout her career, Kelly has been meticulous about separating her campaign activities from her government work. When she ran for state treasurer in 2010, she subtracted from her time sheets any activities that could be considered election-related. In this campaign, she resigned from her job in Cook County to run full time. That’s rare among Illinois politicians.
More important, it demonstrates the ethical compass 2nd District voters need and deserve.
After Robin Kelly lost a 2010 bid for state treasurer, the office’s chief investigator alleged she violated ethics laws by improperly reporting time off from her taxpayer-funded job as chief of staff to then-Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, the Tribune has learned.
Kelly, now a top contender in Tuesday’s special Democratic primary in the 2nd Congressional District race to succeed Jesse Jackson Jr., was at the center of an investigation by the treasurer’s executive inspector general into whether timekeeping violations took place as she campaigned for treasurer, records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show.
The inspector general also requested an audit after Dan Rutherford was sworn in…
The treasurer’s personnel rules required all of a worker’s time off to be approved ahead of time by a supervisor. But from August 2009 through December 2010 — when Kelly was campaigning for treasurer — Kelly filed 107 requests for unpaid time off, the audit found. Of those requests, 82 percent were not approved by a supervisor, but by a human resources director who reported to Kelly, the audit found. Many of those requests were submitted well after the time off had already been taken, the audit found.
In addition, the audit stated that 19 of Kelly’s 24 monthly time-off calendars in 2009-10 were OK’d before her time-off requests had received final approval. It also found 17 of those 24 calendars were approved late and three were never approved.
It appeared Kelly “could come and go as she pleased without consequence,” Ringler wrote. “It also appears that (her time-off) calendars were made to match the times that they needed to, in order to end up with a 35-hour work week and/or 7-hour day, because of the number of times they were approved, reversed, reapproved, reversed again, approved a third time, etc.”
Too late for Toi Hutchinson, unfortunately.
* And speaking of Hutchinson, the Kankakee Daily Journal is upset that so many people wasted their votes on her during early balloting…
(T)he withdrawal pretty much insults the local Kankakee County Democratic Party, which endorsed her, and those Republican officials who had expressed support for her. It becomes very clear, on the scale of district politics, the local influence here is as light as a feather on the scale.
* Meanwhile, this is pretty odd. Candidate Anthony Beale attacked President Obama’s gun record in a press release slap at Kelly…
In an unusual turn for a candidate seeking election next week in a heavily African American District, the Beale statement, released Tuesday, went on to question President Obama’s commitment to reducing gun violence.
“All of my opponents are saying I will stand with the President, but President Obama needs to stand with us in Chicago,” Beale says in the statement. “We never stopped fighting this fight.”
It then cites a series of articles that question Obama’s past positions on gun control, then points back to Beale: “By comparison, Anthony Beale’s record on guns is the strongest and most consistent of anyone in this race for the 2nd CD.”
That includes Christian Science Monitor article in September 2012: In making that comparison (gun control records of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney) Obama has only ever signed laws “expanding gun owners’ rights.”
“It’s not so shocking then that the Brady Campaign “gave Obama an F” in January 2010,” Beale’s statement concludes.
*** UPDATE *** Despite Ald. Beales’ press release, he says in his new TV ad that he will “work with President Obama” for stronger gun laws. Watch…
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* But there’s a serious contradiction in Beale’s gun stance. This is what he told NBC5 a while back…
Q: What kind of guns do you own?
A: A 30-.06 rifle, and 1187 Remington shotgun, and a 9 millimeter Glock. As aldermen, were legally allowed to carry [handguns]. I don’t carry, but under the city ordinance and the state law, we have the right to carry a concealed weapon.
Q: Do you think the entire state should pass that law?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Why not? If it’s OK for aldermen, why not the general public.
A: An alderman is a sworn peace officer, and we have to go through 40 hours training in order to obtain the license. I’ve even taken 20 hours additional training. [Emphasis added.]
“You gotta remember, I didn’t own anything [guns] prior to being an alderman,” he said. “As alderman, I still have the right, because I’m a sworn officer.”
But state law and rules were changed in the late 1990s to require aldermen to undergo 400 hours of training — just like police officers — to become “conservators of the peace.” Beale’s campaign acknowledged the alderman never took that training, but Beale said he now has a Chicago firearms permit. [Emphasis added.]
Oops.
* Related…
* Where Rahm Emanuel Stands On 2nd District Race: Insiders also note Emanuel is in a tight spot with Ald. Anthony Beale being a leading candidate. Emanuel does not want to be perceived as turning on one of his alderman, especially with Ald. Carrie Austin, Michelle Harris and John Pope all supporting Beale.
* Bloomberg super PAC targets Jackson’s former seat - Nearly $3 million spent by outside groups dwarfs candidates
State Police Lt. Darrin Clark said the agency currently gets a $10 fee for issuing Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) cards that are valid for 10 years. The process calls for background checks through a federal database on crime and mental health issues. Clark said it now costs $12 to cover the expense of issuing those cards.
There are nearly 1.5 million FOID cardholders in the state and about 70,000 applications or reapplications each month.
That means it cost the state taxpayers $3 million to process existing FOID cards and another $140,000 a month. The state cops have a huge FOID card backlog right now, partly because the fees are too low, and they’re gonna need a whole lot more money if and/or when concealed carry permits have to be issued (I’ll get to that issue in a bit, so be patient).
Back in the 1960s, the state cops testified yesterday, FOID card fees were $1 a year. Now, they’re $10 for ten years. So, they’re still a dollar a year. $1 in 1969 money is now $6.26, according to a CPI inflation calculator I use.
* Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie) has a new pension reform bill that he says is constitutional. But there are some pretty darned controversial aspects to this bill, like making the income tax hike permanent, with some conditions. It also includes the so-called cost-shift language. While it doesn’t decrease retiree benefits, it does require a three percentage point increase in what employees put into the retirement fund.
Provides that, beginning in State fiscal year 2014, a member who is eligible for medicare shall pay the full premium amount for his or her healthcare coverage under the Act. Amends the Illinois Pension Code.
For the 5 State-funded retirement systems, incrementally increases employee contributions by a total of 3% of salary, imposes a minimum retirement age of 67 (or 62 with a discounted annuity), changes the funding goal from 90% to 80%, and changes the funding formula (beginning in FY2014, applies a 50-year amortization formula to reach an 80% funding ratio).
In the State Universities and Downstate Teacher Articles, shifts costs to local employers.
Amends the Illinois Income Tax Act. Makes the current tax rates permanent.
In any fiscal year in which the total State contribution to the State-funded retirement systems is less than the proceeds from the income tax increase and the debt service savings from the retirement of the 2010 and 2011 Pension Obligation Notes, grants a refundable income tax credit equal to the difference.
* BlueRoomStream.com is covering the press conference. From its Twitter feed…
Lang: The General Assembly should not be responsible for paying pension costs for school districts and universities. They must step up.
In a new memo obtained Tuesday by the Herald & Review’s Springfield Bureau, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union said an ongoing impasse in its talks with the Quinn administration has workers preparing for the possibility of a strike.
“(B)ased on management’s continued insistence that employees must dig deeply into their own pockets to pay for the state’s fiscal woes, there’s no longer much reason to believe that this contract can be settled at the bargaining table,” the memo notes.
“In the coming weeks, if your bargaining committee believes that progress at the bargaining table appears to be at an end, it will ask you to vote to authorize a strike,” the two-page memo adds. […]
In the new memo, AFSCME said the administration continues to demand no wage hikes in all three years of the proposed contract and major increases in health care premiums for current workers and thousands of state retirees.
The union, which represents about 40,000 state workers, has agreed to take no raises in the first year of the contract.
* And here’s the memo. Click the pics for larger images…
* This Illinois Federation of Teachers e-mail from IFT President Dan Montgomery is being forwarded around all over the place…
Late last week, State Senators Linda Holmes (D-Aurora) and Pam Althoff (R-McHenry) filed Senate Bill 2404, legislation that includes key components advocated by the IFT and We Are One Illinois labor coalition. In large part, this fair, constitutional bill provides a path to paying down the pension debt that, as you know, neither workers nor our modest retirement benefits are responsible for causing.
We support this legislation, which addresses three of our key priorities:
1. Guaranteed Funding. You’ve always paid toward your retirement. The state has not. Decades of skipped and shorted payments have created a $90 billion debt and a serious crisis. This bill secures an ironclad promise that lawmakers must make the annual pension and debt payment every year. And, SB2404 establishes the right for the state retirement systems - or individuals - to bring court action if they don’t.
2. Creating a Pension Stabilization Fund. Beyond paying the annual costs, the state must also pay down the massive debt. In past years, Springfield leaders used creative borrowing schemes to make payments, which only created more debt through bonds that had to be paid off first by law. SB2404 would create a constitutionally protected fund to directly pay down the debt with resources already in the Illinois budget.
3. Shared Sacrifice. While public workers are not to blame for Illinois’ pension problem, we are willing to be part of the solution. With an ironclad funding guarantee to ensure employer underfunding can never happen again and the dedicated revenue source described above, active members would contribute an additional 2 percent of salary, phased in over the next two years. This will generate more than $3 billion over the next decade.
In the weeks ahead, organized labor aims to add more co-sponsors to this bipartisan legislation. We believe there is an appetite to support an initiative with the union coalition’s backing.
Notice that there’s no explicit mention of a tax hike in this proposal. There’s just a requirement that all the money be paid. So, without other reforms, there would absolutely have to be either a big tax increase or more budget cuts, or both. Then again, it’s the first time that organized labor has actually supported a bill on this topic. It’s something.
* Treasurer Dan Rutherford spoke at his hometown’s Lincoln Day dinner last night…
“I’m not announcing tonight. None of you walked in this room and thought I was announcing tonight. You know I can’t do it tonight, but I’m in for the governor’s race for the state of Illinois and that’s for doggone sure,” Rutherford said to thunderous applause.
* So, I saw this headline on Drudge while I was out of town over the weekend…
I smirked, then clicked on the link to what turned out to be a Daily Beast story. The lede…
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is said by well-connected Democrats to be considering the idea of running for president if Hillary Clinton opts out of the 2016 race.
Then I read way down into the story to see just who was saying such things…
“I heard there were some conversations with donors especially during the inauguration,” a well-known Democratic politico told The Daily Beast, referring to the January 20-21 celebrations in Washington marking the launch of President Obama’s second term. A second highly placed Democrat echoed that account.
Um, OK. Two guys say they heard some scuttlebutt at the inauguration.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel is taking on chores for President Barack Obama’s new political operation as the president hits Chicago on Friday to sell his second term agenda, and City Hall on Thursday night was scrambling to throw cold water on a report Emanuel is interested in a White House bid.
* Meanwhile, the Daily Beast also interviewed Roland Burris. The article’s description of the man…
Burris, an understated and often overlooked Illinois pol
Understated?
What?
* Among other things, Burris told the Daily Beast about the downsides to his US Senate service…
The commute, for one (not like in Illinois, he noted, when he got to fly to Springfield on state aircraft) and the fact that “there was no per diem. Financially, it was not very rewarding for me at all. You are on your own for expenses. And getting out of O’Hare on commercial airlines.”
Still, he adds, “if there is another vacancy, I would love to go there for a short time again. If something happens to one of our senators, and the governor wants to appoint me, I would love to go back.”
* The latest results from the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute’s statewide poll of 600 registered voters…
1. What do you think is more important? Protecting the right to own guns, or controlling gun ownership?
Protecting the right to own guns 31.3%
Controlling ownership 59.5%
Other/Don’t know 9.2%
2. In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?
More strict 72.3%
Less strict 2.2%
Kept the same 21.3%
Other/Don’t know 4.2%
3. Do you favor or oppose banning high-capacity ammunition clips that can contain more than 10 bullets?
Favor 62.8%
Oppose 33.3%
Other/Don’t know 3.8%
4. Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?
Favor 58.7%
Oppose 35.2%
Other/Don’t know 6.2%
5. Do you favor or oppose a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?
Favor 32.7%
Oppose 61.3%
Other/Don’t know 6.0%
6. Do you favor or oppose a law that would require background checks before people – including gun dealers – could buy guns at a gun show?
Favor 92.5%
Oppose 5.5%
Other/Don’t know 2.0%
7. Do you favor or oppose putting more armed guards or police in schools?
Favor 46.3%
Oppose 44.8%
Other/Don’t know 8.8%
8. (IF YES ABOVE, N=278) Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to pay for more armed guards or police in schools?
Yes 63.3%
No 30.9%
Other/Don’t know 5.8%
9. Do you believe the Second Amendment includes the right to carry concealed weapons in public?
Yes 39.5%
No 49.7%
Other/Don’t know 10.8%
10. (IF YES ABOVE, N=237) Do you believe there should be exceptions to allowing concealed weapons in public places—excluding them from such places as schools, college campuses, shopping malls and movie theaters?
About twice as many Illinois voters surveyed thought controlling gun ownership was more important than protecting the right to own guns (59.5 percent to 31.3 percent). A recent poll of all Americans taken by Pew Research, shows a 49 to 42 percent split on that question. […]
Even within constituencies that are seen as pro-gun, majorities in the Simon Poll said they favored stricter gun control. These groups included downstate voters (66.1%) conservatives (54.6%) and Republicans (55.4%).
Significant majorities also favored most of the specific gun-control policy proposals tested in the poll, including requiring background checks before anyone—including gun dealers—could buy firearms at gun shows (92.5 percent); banning high-capacity ammunition magazines (62.8 percent); and banning semi-automatic “assault rifles” (58.7 percent).
“It’s striking how much stronger the support for gun control measures is in Illinois compared to the nation as a whole,” said David Yepsen, the director of the Institute. “But it’s not surprising because on measurements of many social issues, the electorate in Illinois is more left of center than the American electorate.” […]
Among those who thought the Second Amendment did cover concealed weapons, a large majority (71.3 percent) thought there should be exceptions to concealed-carry in places such as schools, college campuses, malls, and theaters.
“Off topic? I can’t imagine what that would be,” cracked Gov. Pat Quinn last week during a news conference.
Just hours before, his lieutenant governor had announced that she would not be Quinn’s 2014 running mate.
Quinn usually does a pretty good job during his news conferences of persuading reporters to wait to ask off-topic questions until all questions about the subject at hand have been asked. Last week was no exception.
Quinn was holding the session with U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to discuss her conditional approval in allowing Illinois to move forward with an online health insurance exchange — a major step toward implementing the president’s national health care plan.
“You could get caught by stray bullets,” Quinn jokingly warned the folks who had gathered with him to make the announcement. “You don’t have to be part of the firing squad.”
He knew what was coming. Earlier in the morning, the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute had released a poll showing that Quinn was badly trailing Lisa Madigan in a hypothetical primary election match.
By midmorning, the late U.S. senator’s daughter, Sheila, had announced that she wouldn’t be running with him again for lieutenant governor. Simon’s aides say she didn’t know about the poll from her late father’s think tank, but the rich irony wasn’t lost on those of us who watch these things.
Simon was chosen in 2010 by Quinn after Democratic primary voters made the unfortunate mistake of nominating a pawn broker with a rather “colorful” past by the name of Scott Lee Cohen. After details of Cohen’s alleged assault of a massage parlor girlfriend/lover emerged, he was pressured to drop out of the race.
Quinn didn’t pick Simon for her political acumen. She had lost a Carbondale mayor’s race that pretty much everybody thought was in the bag.
Instead, she was chosen mainly for her name. The governor still idolizes her father, and that name is still held in high esteem among older Democrats.
Simon, however, seemed to chafe at times under Quinn’s leadership. He demanded too much control of her budget. She had to fight for every dime, every hire, every square inch of office space.
As with most of her predecessors, Simon found that being lieutenant governor wasn’t worth much.
It doesn’t take a political scientist to see that Quinn could very well be doomed in 2014. He barely won four years ago against a weak Republican candidate, mainly because he convinced voters that his heart was in the right place.
But after four years on the job, the public strongly dislikes him. The Simon Institute’s recent poll pegged his job approval rating at just 32.8 percent. Other polls have shown even worse numbers.
Anyway, back to last week’s big announcement by Simon. Usually with these sorts of announcements, some sort of groundwork is done beforehand. A newspaper is given a tip, for instance. Top insiders are told what to expect.
That didn’t happen this time. I’d told my subscribers several days before that Simon was planning to run for another office and that Quinn was rumored to be looking for a black running mate, but that didn’t come directly from inside. Some top Quinn staffers were completely caught off guard by last week’s announcement, which just fueled the fires.
So, the mainstream media wasn’t kind, and the poll’s timing didn’t help matters much. The fact that Quinn didn’t appear with Simon at her announcement further underscored the curiosity of the whole thing.
Word from inside is that Simon told Quinn in December that she had set her sights on state comptroller. But she reportedly assumed that Republican incumbent Judy Baar Topinka would be retiring. Not happening.
So, now on her radar screen is state treasurer, which will be an open contest if Republican Dan Rutherford pulls the trigger on running for governor, or attorney general if Democrat Lisa Madigan decides to move up to governor.
For Quinn, though, last week’s optics were terrible. Three straight polls have now shown him doing very poorly against Madigan. His lieutenant governor abruptly announces that she’s abandoning him without even knowing where she’ll land.
And he was left to face reporters alone on what should have been a major news day for him.
This was, to say the least, not an auspicious beginning for Quinn’s re-election effort.
* Erickson: Politicos jockey for state’s top job: “This is odd. I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s very different, and I’m really surprised. You know, look, her good name helped her get the position she’s in, and I think her good work has kept her there. Now she’s going to go out and test the waters to see if her name that she’s developed is electable, and boy, I’m not yet sure,” Jacobs said Wednesday.
Candidates in the South Side Second Congressional District angrily attacked the Mayor of New York Monday.
They complained that Michael Bloomberg’s Super PAC is trying to buy the Democratic nomination for Robin Kelly with millions of dollars in independent expenditures. Not only that, but two of Robin Kelly’s top rivals said they suspect she broke federal campaign rules by secretly coordinating strategy with Mayor Bloomberg.
“I have nothing to do with what he’s doing, never did. So, whatever people are saying, it’s untrue, ridiculous. I don’t know the man,” Kelly said.
Still, Kelly, a native of New York, is the chief beneficiary of more than $2 million that billionaire New York Mayor Bloomberg’s Super PAC is spending in the Second Congressional District.
After a debate in south suburban Matteson late Monday, rival candidates Anthony Beale and Deborah Halvorson pointed to a report on the influential blog Capitol Fax. They said it indicates that Kelly and Bloomberg forces have closely coordinated their actions for more than month — in violation of federal campaign rules.
“According to Capitol Fax, it says that she’s been going around for weeks talking about her strategy being exactly what happened,” Halvorson says.
“That looks extremely suspicious and, so, when you look at the amount of money, we don’t need somebody from New York dictating to us here in the Second Congressional District,” says Ald. Anthony Beale.
I never reported any such thing. I simply posted an analysis by a Toi Hutchinson partisan which made the claim that Hutchinson had won the week and also included the unsubstantiated allegations. In retrospect, I should’ve deleted that part of it. Kelly’s campaign flatly denied the allegation, by the way.
