May 17, 2013
Honorable Pat Quinn
Office of the Governor
207 Illinois State Capitol
Springfield, IL 62706
Dear Governor Quinn,
Re: Hamos Executive Appointment Rejection Letter dated March 23, 2013
On occasion, there are policies and issues that galvanize the African American and Latino Caucuses. We convey to you for your edification the unified sentiment of our respective caucuses that Director Hamos is not deserving of our vote of confidence. Director Hamos has demonstrated her priority to care for the poor and the institutions that they rely on is secondary to simply cutting the budget regardless of the consequences. We do not support her confirmation as the Director of HFS. You would be better served by new leadership that is in line with your compassion and commitment to those who are less fortunate and not one that governs by “executive fiat”. It has been your “imprimatur” of being on the side of the most vulnerable.
Subsequently, over the years, our communities have been disenfranchised by the policies and actions of the current HFS administration. How loudly do the downtrodden and disenfranchised of our communities have to call out Director Hamos to stop elitist policies and listen to the cries of the community without input from the legislature and safety net hospital leaders? How many hospitals in economically distressed communities have to go bankrupt? How many healthcare employees have to lose their jobs? How many people with mental illness, back and forth from the fringes of society, have to be thrown in jail? How many undocumented residents have to continue to be kicked to the curb?
The plans that HFS have implemented will lead to the closing of safety net hospitals, some sooner, some later, leaving African American, Latino and low income families without access to healthcare in their own communities. This will be a moral and economic catastrophe. Some hospital budgets are now artificially inflated by temporary federal government subsidies for their implementation of Electronic Health Records, and when these payments end and HFS’s rate reductions are realized, hospitals will shut down. Consequently, our constituents will be forced to travel incredible distances to healthcare institutions that don’t want them.
We have concluded, after consultation with the care providers that take care of the poor, that the following are policies that need to be addressed immediately:
• Rate Reform: Once rate reform is finalized, HFS needs to make up for any decreases in payment and to increase payments to support a 4% operating margin. This margin is necessary to offset inflation and to permit hospitals to invest in new equipment and technology. Annual inflationary increases to payment levels also need to be made.
• Movement to Managed Care: HFS is planning to move patients to HMOs, but this will cause the state to lose $1 billion in federal funds. HFS must rethink this so we do not lose these critical federal dollars that support healthcare for the poor.
• New/Increased Provider Tax: HFS’s failure to make this happen has cost Illinois and our safety net hospitals millions in increased federal funding this year. This issue needs to be resolved immediately.
• Readmission Penalty: HFS’s plan will send half of the hospital penalty back to Washington with no benefit to Illinois’ budget, causing unnecessary hardship on our hospitals. The method of taking back the penalty needs to be changed so that only half of the amount is taken from the hospitals and no funds are returned to Washington. Psychiatric patients, who are in and out of hospitals frequently, should be excluded completely.
• Healthcare for the Undocumented: Undocumented immigrants are contributing members of our communities, and safety net hospitals continue to provide care to them. HFS needs to support its safety net hospitals in their efforts to provide this care because the Affordable Care Act will not.
We urge you to take the State of Illinois in a new direction that is better serving for patients who depend on you as well as the safety net hospitals that take care of them. Both of the undersigned stand ready to meet with you to discuss this matter of grave importance.
Sincerely,
Hon. Martin Sandoval
Hon. Donne Trotter
Emphasis added. “Unified sentiment of our respective caucuses” refers to the Senate Latino and Black caucuses.
At a City Club of Chicago address this morning, Gov. Pat Quinn said lawmakers shouldn’t let the razzle-dazzle of slot machines distract them from their true mission of overhauling pensions.
“For those legislators who are enamored with the shiny object (of) expanding gaming in illinois, that has to wait until we get the important priority of pension reform done,” Quinn warned.
“If we don’t buckle down and focus on pension reform we will truly regret it,” Quinn said. “We really need to keep everybody’s attention on public pension reform in these next 11 days. There can be no real advance on gaming and all that, unless we do pension reform.”
And yet the governor wants an immediate vote on gay marriage, said he’ll concentrate on passing a high capacity gun magazine ban this week, and etc.
Still, he’s said this about gaming all down the line.
* The Question: Should the General Assembly wait until after pension reform is completed before sending a gaming bill to the governor? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
* The Senate Executive Appointments Committee met this morning. David Gill’s nomination wasn’t considered. Some Senate Republicans want the governor to put that nomination forward before the end of the spring session so they can question Gill about how he was appointed.
As you already know, Gill was appointed to a top Quinn administration position the very same day that Ann Callis announced her resignation as a judge and said she planned to campaign against Republican Congressman Rodney Davis. It smelled like a cooked deal, and it probably was. Gill had run several times for that congressional seat in the past, and the DCCC heavily recruited Callis and wanted Gill out of the way. Mission accomplished.
* Meanwhile, a move from Chicago to Champaign is causing some folks to get out their prognostication telescopes. Tom Kasich had the scoop last week…
Less than a year after Republican county chairmen in the 13th District turned down her candidacy for Congress, Urbana native Erika Harold is moving back to Champaign-Urbana and has indicated an interest in running for public office.
But she declined to say Monday if she is looking at a local, state or federal position.
“At this point I plan to make an announcement regarding future political plans within a couple of weeks,” said the former Miss America, who grew up in Urbana, and graduated with an undergraduate degree from the University of Illinois and a law degree from Harvard.
* The speculation is that she could take on Rodney Davis in the GOP primary or set herself up for a statewide bid. Bernie followed up…
If indeed Harold has been bitten by the political bug, choices could be many. It still looks as if there could be a free-for-all in the 2014 GOP primary for governor, and under a new law, candidates for governor have to have running mates in the primary. So, could a Chicago-area man running for the state’s top job balance the ticket with a Harvard-educated lawyer living in Urbana who happened to be Miss America? Stranger things have happened.
If Attorney General Lisa Madigan takes the plunge and runs for the Democratic nomination for governor, which would set up a likely battle with incumbent Gov. Pat Quinn, that could affect many political choices, including someone like Harold seeking the office of attorney general.
OK, I’m gonna get a little blunt here, so pardon me in advance.
Both parties use less winnable slots for their, um, affirmative action programs. The 2010 GOP also-rans were both unknowns and both minorities (Robert Enriquez for SoS, Steve Kim for attorney general). It’s expected that the Dems will try to field an African-American or Latino against Judy Baar Topinka next year.
So, a first time, completely untested candidate for an open seat attorney general’s race may not be in the cards. If Lisa Madigan runs for reelection, however, Harold might be encouraged to run for that slot.
* A lite guv spot probably wouldn’t be bad, though, since both parties will probably try to use that position to do strategic and tactical outreach. Matt Dietrich gushes at the possiblity…
Hmm. A Chicago-area man running for governor looking for some downstate credibility? It certainly wouldn’t hurt Bruce Rauner, who is virtually unknown outside Chicago, to land a running mate with downstate roots, degrees from U of I and Harvard Law School and a Miss America title as well. Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale is the other presumptive GOP gubernatorial candidate from the Chicago area. Having Harold on his ticket certainly would give his campaign a boost in competing against Rauner’s fund-raising machine. The female vote in the suburbs will be key for any Republican candidate, and Harold’s presence on the ticket could bring benefits there. […]
It’s all so tantalizing. And all just speculation for now. But it won’t be for long.
Monday, May 20, 2013 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
ComEd’s residential electricity bills remain stable and are a good value for customers. While other household costs have risen since 1997, ComEd’s rates have gone down by 23 percent when adjusted for inflation. Electricity rates in Chicago are well below the average rate among the top U.S. cities.
Even accounting for recent filings related to a change in delivery costs, customer bills will be the same or lower than they were a year earlier for the foreseeable future, while electric service and reliability continue to improve.
ComEd customer bills have been and will remain flat until January 2015, making this the right time to invest in our system. Electric grid modernization creates efficiencies and savings opportunities that will lead to significant benefits for our customers, ultimately producing benefits that will more than double the cost of these investments. Smart meters will create efficiencies within ComEd and will provide customers with greater control over their energy use and costs, driving long-term savings.
Through grid modernization, ComEd also has deployed more than 600 smart switches, avoiding about 100,000 outages; reduced storm restoration times by 15 percent; awarded contracts worth $118 million; and created more than 2,400 full-time equivalent jobs in Illinois.
With supply prices still low, now is the time to move forward with grid modernization. Members of the General Assembly should approve Senate Bill 9 to get the Smart Grid back on track.
A leading proponent of legislation that cracks down on the delivery and sale of high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition said his proposal will get a vote in the Senate Executive Committee today at 1 p.m.
Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, said SB1002 “strikes a proper balance” between limiting the damage that high-capacity magazines can cause and protecting Second Amendment rights. […]
With the latest amendment, law-abiding citizens who currently own these high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds would not be affected by this bill, Kotowski said. That was one of the bigger hiccups in a similar proposal that failed in the House earlier this year. It lacked a grandfather clause to allow people to keep ones they already own.
The legislation also increases prison sentences for sale or delivery of such magazines, Kotowski said.
I purchased a pistol recently (my first as an adult) which came with two standard magazines. One was 13 rounds, the other was 16 rounds.
To my eyes, anyway, the gun manufacturers appear to be creating a situation on the ground that makes large capacity mags a reality everywhere they are still legal. Frankly, I don’t care whether the mags are 10 or 20 rounds. So far, I’m just using it for recreational target practice at the local firing range. More rounds per magazine means I have to reload fewer times. But really it’s not that big of a deal. Range rental is cheap here. The extra few minutes isn’t crucial.
Others probably have a differing opinion.
Also, expect this bill to pass Senate Exec. It’s a wired committee.
But if they’re also enrolled in TANF, those restrictions get unwound. TANF money can be withdrawn from ATMs, via the Link card, and spent on anything. The money is intended to pay utilities, rent and essentials. But it’s cash — tough to track and regulate. Grocery clerks will tell you: It’s not uncommon for users to go through the grocery lane with food, then come back with TANF cash for cigarettes or alcohol.
The number of TANF recipients in Illinois has risen by 21 percent in the last 10 years, from 108,528 people in 2003 to 131,497.
The food stamp population has risen much more dramatically: 958,798 in 2003 to more than 2.1 million now, a 114 percent increase.
No red flags, lawmakers? Those numbers cannot be explained away as a side effect of a slow economy. We’ve got a bigger problem here.
The money is not “intended” for any special purpose. And once the cash is withdrawn, it’s their money. Same goes for the Tribune’s multitude of tax breaks. Once they get their state tax break, they can use that extra money however they desire, including to bash the government.
Also, the cash program has risen just a little bit each year for the past decade. The Tribune had to use food stamp increases to justify its harangue over a separate program.
And keep in mind that putting restrictions on the usage of that cash wouldn’t save the state a dollar. It would just require (somehow, nobody’s really explained that yet) that the cash not be used for certain items.
For state Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, this was the last straw: A food stamp recipient in his district used her Link card to bail herself out of jail.
She didn’t bail herself out of jail with food stamps. Another apparently deliberate misdirection move by the Tribune. She bailed herself out with her cash grant.
If you ask me, bailing myself out of jail would be my top priority for any cash I had, government or not.
Seeking to keep pace with changing technology, Illinois toughened penalties Saturday for those who use social media and text messaging to organize violent “flash mobs” like those that have occurred on Chicago’s Michigan Avenue and in other tourist areas.
Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation doubling the maximum prison term for offenders to six years. The legislation was in direct response to recent incidents in downtown Chicago that left business owners fearful that tourists and other visitors would be scared off. Bill sponsor Rep. Christian Mitchell, a Chicago Democrat, has said it will also make neighborhoods throughout the state safer.
“Nobody should have to worry about a violent mob attack when going about their daily lives,” Quinn said in a written statement, calling the use of technology to organize such action a “troubling trend.”
Police say groups of young people used Facebook and Twitter, as well as text messaging, to organize and publicize a mob action along Michigan Avenue in March. They say several hundred people — most of them teenagers — ran up and down the upscale shopping area, yelling and bumping into people.
Chicago Police arrested 11 juveniles and one adult for obstruction of traffic and recklessness according to Chicago Police News Affairs. Charges are now pending.
Before roughly 7 PM Saturday, a large group of teens gathered in front of Saks Fifth Avenue on Michigan Avenue. A second group gathered near Oak Street Beach and another moved west on Chicago Avenue from Michigan Avenue. Witnesses say one group blocked traffic on LaSalle Street. Police say they weren’t violent, but one witness tells WGN he saw a group attack and beat a young woman.
Police officers on bicycles flooded the area and moved the group along.
The disturbances caused by these large groups of teens came just hours after Governor Pat Quinn signed a new bill cracking down on flash mob violence organized through the use of social media.
* By the way, a whole lot of commenters here about this new law have been badly misinformed. The new penalties only apply to those already convicted. From the synopsis…
Amends the Unified Code of Corrections. Provides that using electronic communications to solicit or commit mob action may be used by the court to impose an extended term sentence upon conviction. [Emphasis added.]
The law merely gives judges an avenue to throw the book at people who’ve already been convicted of mob action.
Monday, May 20, 2013 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Credit unions were first exempted from federal income tax in 1917 because of their unique structure as not-for-profit financial cooperatives. Contrary to what some banks may suggest, credit unions pay property, payroll, and sales taxes. Yet while banks decry the credit union tax exemption, nearly 40 percent of banks in Illinois elect Subchapter S status under the Internal Revenue Code to avoid federal income taxation. That’s $58 million in diverted tax dollars. These for-profit Sub-S banks also pay dividends and fees — not to customers, but to directors/investors/stockholders who may or may not be depositors — to the tune of nearly $1.1 billion. This is far in excess of the estimated federal income tax credit unions would pay. In contrast, credit unions return net revenue to their members. The banker argument against the credit union tax exemption is simply disingenuous. If banks really believed that credit unions operate with an unfair competitive advantage, they would restructure their institutions to credit union charters. None would, however, because doing so would expose them to becoming democratically controlled, locally-owned financial cooperatives governed by their very own volunteer members that put people before profits — all the virtues that define the credit union difference.
About the time the first pitch was thrown at Wrigley Field in a game between the Cubs and the St. Louis Cardinals on a recent night, a local group, the East Lake View Neighbors, called a meeting to order two blocks away. The agenda was to discuss proposed Wrigley renovations that the Cubs had submitted to the City Council.
The team’s presentation included a slide show with facts, figures and renderings. As Mike Lufrano, the Cubs’ vice president for community affairs, explained the concept of bringing street fairs to Sheffield Avenue, which borders Wrigley to the east, he was stopped.
“Can you go over that again?” a man asked. “I oppose it, but I want to make sure I know what I’m opposing.”
That’s just one aspect of the problems the Ricketts family is having these days.
“Everyone is wrong,” said the Illinois political insider Rich Miller, who publishes the Capitol Fax newsletter in Springfield. “But at the same time, everyone has a point.” […]
“The city should be more business friendly, that’s a given,” Miller, the newsletter publisher, said. “But a lot of people look at the Ricketts family as rubes. There is a sense that they came in from Nebraska, bought the team and didn’t understand what they were getting into.”
I said more than that, but space considerations, etc. Here’s some of what I said…
1) The Ricketts are right to want to change Wrigley Field because it’s their business and they’re no longer asking for taxpayer subsidies;
2) The Ricketts are wrong because they have a contract with the rooftop owners and they should’ve bought some buildings right away if they were so concerned; plus, they’re out of town rubes (I asked the reporter how New Yorkers would react if a Nebraskan bought the Yankees);
3) The city is right to slow things down because there are so many competing interests here;
4) The city is wrong because it interferes just way too much in business decisions, and this is a microcosm of how tough it is to do anything in that town;
5) The rooftop owners are right because they have built a business from nothing;
6) The rooftop owners are wrong because their business essentially costs the Cubs money;
7) The neighborhood associations are right to look out for their own interests;
8) The neighborhood associations are so knee-jerk that they’ll oppose any changes, as that above quote makes clear.
* As expected, the pressure in the House to vote on Senate President John Cullerton’s pension reform bill is mounting. I don’t think I disagree with a word of what Rep. Hays said here…
“I think if we voted on the Cullerton bill, I think it would pass overwhelmingly,” said Rep. Chad Hays, R-Catlin. “My gut is that it would pass handily. Whether we get that opportunity remains to be seen.
“You might see some of the Republicans who did not vote for the Madigan bill (SB 1), I think they’d strongly consider voting for 2404.”
He predicted it would pass with “80-plus votes” out of the 118-member House.
“I’ve been saying for two years that we need a negotiated approach, with everybody at the table,” said Hays. “It’s certainly not a perfect bill, but it is by far the closest to that kind of a solution.”
But he said chances that it would get a vote in the House are “less than 25 percent.” […]
Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana, said she thinks the Cullerton bill “should come to the House, but I don’t know how that will be resolved.” […]
Rep. Adam Brown, R-Champaign, said “that would be the most fair way to do it.
“Let’s have a fair hearing over here in the House and see if there’s support for it,” he added.
It’s simple math. Not the savings part, but the support part. Legislators always prefer negotiated solutions to huge, seemingly intractable problems. They’ve been told for years that there was no magic solution to this dilemma. They’d have to vote for something the unions hated. But now, there is a bill out there that the unions support. Yes, it doesn’t save as much as the bill which already passed the House, but it is an incredibly attractive proposition.
So far, though, there’s been no indication from Speaker Madigan that he’ll allow the union bill to the floor. Stay tuned, but don’t get your hopes up, either.
* Employees, retirees worry about impact of fixing state pension shortfall: An Illinois agency manager might have to delay retirement. A former university secretary wonders if she’ll have to cancel vacations. A state office assistant fears he won’t be able to afford the medical care his wife needs.
* State Sen. Jim Oberweis has been one of the strongest, most public critics of former Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady for running afoul of the party platform by supporting a gay marriage bill.
State Senator Jim Oberweis (R-Aurora) surprised Capitol observers Friday when he, along with two other Republicans, voted to legalize medical marijuana in Illinois. HB 1, which passed the House earlier this year, will now proceed to Governor Quinn, who has not committed to sign it yet, but said he’s “open-minded” about it.
That “open-mindedness” is the same position held by Oberweis as he went into the HB 1 vote discussion Friday.
“I’m honestly undecided about this,” Oberweis told his Democrat colleague and bill sponsor State Senator Bill Haine of Alton. Oberweis told Illinois Review Friday evening that his final decision came down to the overwhelming majority of people in his district who supported legalizing medical marijuana.
Oberweis, who asserted that he’s never tried marijuana or any illegal drug in his life, said a recent telephone townhall helped him decide in favor of medical marijuana.
“[It was a] difficult vote, but during a recent Tele Townhall in my district, we asked a question about medical marijuana and a strong majority said yes,” Oberweis said in an email.
In one of the debate’s most moving moments, state Sen. Kyle McCarter (R-Lebanon) choked up noting that the pain of an ill patient who might benefit from marijuana is miniscule compared to the pain of a parent who loses a child from drug abuse. McCarter’s 21-year-old daughter died from an accidental drug overdose.
“For every touching story we’ve heard about the benefits to those in pain, I remind you today that there are a thousand times more parents who’ll never be relieved from the pain of losing a child due to addiction, which in many cases started with the very illegal, FDA-unapproved, addiction-forming drug that you are asking us to make a normal part of our communities,” McCarter told his colleagues, his voice breaking. “As one of those dads, I ask you to vote no.”
“Look, if people are going to be mad at me for a vote on that bill, so be it. I didn’t feel strongly,” he said. “I don’t think there’s a significant amount of harm that will come to the state because of it.”
But Oberweis is a member of the state central committee. And while the platform doesn’t explicitly mention medical marijuana, it is clear that the platform pledges less drug use.
So, did Oberweis the central committeeman violate the platform? Did he “do the right thing” despite what his party (and some of his party fellows like Sen. McCarter) stands for? And isn’t that what Brady did?
* “I ask my colleagues who are in my party to just be fair and look at this from a broader point of view,” Senate President John Cullerton said yesterday of a proposal to ban gun magazines that can hold over ten rounds. Cullerton made his remarks during a press conference with Gov. Pat Quinn and three Sandy Hook parents…
The grieving mother of a 6-year-old killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School joined Illinois Democrats on Sunday in calling for a statewide ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Nicole Hockley choked up when discussing the December massacre in Newtown, Conn., that claimed her son Dylan.
“In Newtown, we learned the brutal truth about the devastation that high-capacity magazines can cause,” said Hockley inside the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.
Hockley, who was joined by fellow Newtown parents Mark Barden and Francine Wheeler, said the proposed law — Senate Bill 1002 — could save innocent lives.
Adam Lanza, 20, who stormed Sandy Hook and killed 27 people there, including himself, fired 154 bullets in less than five minutes, officials said. He deliberately chose to carry 30-round magazines instead of smaller magazines to kill as many people as possible, Hockley said.
* While Cullerton’s focus was on the magazine ban, he talked a lot about his chamber’s concealed carry bill, which wasn’t called for a vote on Friday…
A Senate effort to impose restrictive concealed-carry limits on Illinois gun owners failed to surface for a vote Friday as expected even after the legislation was changed to ease opposition from the National Rifle Association.
“One of the realities that I was keenly aware of when I entered this effort was that there are some extremists,” said Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), sponsor of the gun-control measure. “There are some extremists with some very loyal followings, and they use intimidation as part of their advocacy efforts. And sometimes that intimidation is quite effective.”
Both Raoul and Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) had hinted at a full floor vote after the bill cleared a Senate panel on a 10-4 vote Thursday, but it became clear a consensus had not been reached by Friday.
The bill was at least partly short of votes due to NRA resistance over the legislation requiring Chicago police Supt. Garry McCarthy to vet all permit-seekers in Chicago and allowing local sheriffs to object to any permit application.
* OK, let’s turn on the Wayback Machine, shall we? Set the coordinates to August 27, 2012. Cullerton was in southern Illinois to stump for Sen. Gary Forby’s campaign. He was talked mainly about overriding Gov. Qunn’s veto of parts of the Department of Corrections operations budget. But Cullerton was also asked about Rep. Brandon Phelps’ concealed carry bill, which was still in the House. Would he call it for a vote?
“I’m not going to use the power of the President of the Senate to block a vote,” Cullerton said, and continued…
“What I’m saying is, if that bill is introduced it will be on the senate floor for a vote. We’ll see what happens. I’m not going to block it. And I have talked to the NRA about this.”
* OK, let’s now reset the coordinates to an earlier southern Illinois appearance by Cullerton. This time, April 11, 2011…
Tuesday in Carbondale, Cullerton indicated that even though he is opposed to “people having loaded weapons on them,” he would consider assigning the bill to another committee.
Noting that concealed carry has not fared well in the Public Health committee, Cullerton said, “If it does pass the House, if we have enough folks that want to have a vote on the Senate floor we can have that vote.”
* I asked Cullerton’s press secretary for a response. Shouldn’t Cullerton now stand aside and allow Forby to call a concealed carry bill that he supports?..
Before the 7th circuit’s decision, this could be framed based on Cullerton’s support or lack thereof for passing a concealed carry bill. For that reason, his promise not to block a vote was relevant. And like his promise on overriding the Governor’s prison cuts, he planned to follow through on that promise.
Not only is he not blocking a vote on concealed carry, he isn’t even in a position to do so given the court’s mandate.
Cullerton did assign gun bills to a different committee for consideration this year. He moved them from public health to judiciary with the goal of reviewing all relevant legislation together and designating a point person to develop a plan for consideration.
He has a preferred plan. The NRA doesn’t love it. And not all of our members are going to love it. But it is a concealed carry bill. And ironically, the NRA is blocking it.
It’s hard not to boil this down to anything but the NRA being riled up that Cullerton didn’t defer to their preferred approach on concealed carry.
* From another top Cullerton aide…
Rich, the promise to call a concealed carry bill became irrelevant when the court said we had to act. The downstaters are going to get concealed carry one way or another. That supercedes the mere promise to call a bill. Its all NRA spin. They don’t like Cullerton or his push to increase his caucus numbers in the suburbs at their expense .
Then he invited them to the governor’s mansion in Springfield, three hours away. On Monday they’ll lobby politicians, including some former colleagues of then-State Senator Barack Obama, on curtailing high capacity ammunition magazines.
One of the worst kept secrets over the past few weeks is that House Republican Leader Tom Cross has been considering a run for Illinois attorney general.
Cross has reportedly been asked by Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka and Congressman Aaron Schock to think about a bid in case Attorney General Lisa Madigan decides to run for governor or simply not run for anything.
A former county prosecutor, Leader Cross has long considered a bid for the office. But as recently as a few weeks ago, Cross’ people were denying that he would do it. Now, however, they are saying it’s a possibility. The calls from top Republicans and some major GOP fundraisers have apparently helped focus his mind. “Any time you have so many people requesting that you consider something you owe it to them to do some due diligence,” explained one Cross backer last week.
Top Republicans believe they have a decent shot at winning the race after picking up two other down-ballot statewide offices in 2010. Rep. Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs) is so far the only other Republican openly considering the office. But there is some doubt that Durkin will pull the trigger.
Durkin ran against US Sen. Richard Durbin in 2002, beating both Jim Oberweis and John Cox in the GOP primary, but losing the general election with just 38 percent of the vote. He was heavily involved in both of John McCain’s presidential bids, so he has significant statewide experience. But serious doubts about whether he’ll run for attorney general have caused some top folks to start coalescing behind Cross.
Cross’ people stress that their boss hasn’t yet made a final decision, but they do acknowledge that it would be rather awkward if both Cross and Durkin run against each other in a primary. Even so, they say the two are friends and they figure they’ll work things out one way or the other come summertime.
It’s possible that Durkin could even be a potential Cross replacement as House GOP Leader if Cross runs statewide and he doesn’t. For now, though, nothing has been decided, partly because everybody is waiting to see what AG Madigan does, and partly because there is still some time to sort everything out within the party.
Durkin was obviously caught by surprise by Cross’ decision to publicly reveal his intentions. But he pushed back against those who say he’s not seriously putting a campaign together by saying he’s met with a pollster and a fundraiser as well as with the Republican Attorney General Association.
However, he said he has told people “consistently” that there’s no vacancy at the moment, so he’s going to wait and see what incumbent Lisa Madigan does before making a decision.
As far as Leader Cross goes, Durkin said “We’re good friends and no matter what happens we will continue to be good friends.”
Cross has not had much luck, to say the least, in winning new seats under two successive Democratic maps in a Democratic-trending state, although he fared better than the Senate Republicans did last year. His caucus is deeply divided along geographic and ideological lines and holding them together is no easy task. After years of iron-fisted control of the caucus by Lee Daniels, Cross promised to be a more small “d” democratic leader. But that has resulted in some embarrassing results, including recently when a majority of his caucus voted against a pension reform bill that he’d been advocating for years.
According to the “Trial Balloons” website, no other Republicans besides Durkin have yet floated their names for attorney general. The Democratic list is long, however. Sen. Kwame Raoul, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon, Chicago Board of Education member and prominent Latino attorney Jesse Ruiz, and state Reps. Jack Franks and John Bradley are all listed as possible candidates, as is Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez.
A crowded Democratic primary could very well cause a surprising election result, so the Republicans definitely want to be ready just in case they get a relatively weak opponent.
Ms. Madigan has been just too popular with voters to hurt a potential farm team member in the long run by putting up any sort of decent fight against her. If she moves on, the Republicans figure they at least have a shot at winning the slot.
