The Illinois Senate has approved a measure that would protect consumers who buy a dog or cat at a pet store and then find out that the animal is seriously ill.
Lawmakers voted 31-18 Wednesday to send to the Illinois House the bill described as a “puppy lemon law.”
The legislation would allow buyers to get a replacement or a full refund for the pet if the animal dies within 21 days of the purchase. Consumers also could seek damages for the cost of veterinary care.
Illinois now requires pet stores to provide information about a pet’s health history but gives consumers no remedy if they unknowingly buy an ill animal. Nor is there any way in which someone can be reimbursed for veterinary bills if the pet they bought was ill when it was bought.
Opponents argued that Kotowski’s bill didn’t cover the majority of pet purchases, which come from breeders or animal shelters. By one estimate made during floor debate Wednesday, as few as 15 percent of pet purchases occur at pet shops.
“It’s a little like we’ll have a speed limit on 30 percent of the state’s highways and the rest of the time you can go as high as you want,” said Sen. Dale Righter (R-Charleston). “The average cost of a dog in a pet store was about $1,000. We’ll protect the consumers who have the money to pay $1,000 for a dog as a pet. What about all those consumers who can’t afford that?”
Kotowski’s bill, patterned after existing pet “lemon” laws in 17 other states, now moves to the House.
Kotowski’s bill addresses pets that are bred for retail and sold for a profit. Like it or not, they’re a product. Customers pay a premium for them and expect the merchant to stand behind its goods.
Shelters and rescues are in the business of finding homes for stray or abandoned animals that might otherwise be destroyed or spend their lives in a kennel. When you adopt a shelter pet, you typically pay only for its shots, a spay or neuter, and maybe a fee to help keep the organization running. There’s no manufacturing cost and no retail markup. But you’re taking a leap of faith, because the animal’s background is usually a mystery.
Shelter mutts might in fact be healthier precisely because they’re not bred for sale. Selective breeding to emphasize certain traits can lead to genetic defects as well. That’s especially true when dogs are bred indiscriminately, with an eye for profit.
Like any business, commercial breeders make money by keeping costs as low as possible. Dogs are breeding stock, not pets. The bad actors in the business are the puppy mills, where animals live in cramped, unsanitary conditions without adequate food, water, exercise or veterinary care. Puppies bred in those surroundings might not be healthy, socialized or genetically sound.
Puppy lemon laws — at least 20 states have one — target the puppy mills by holding the sellers responsible if an animal turns out to be sick or to have a congenital defect. Sure, it’s a protection for the consumer, but it also puts the squeeze on puppy mills by encouraging pet stores to deal with reputable suppliers.
* And, of course, as long as we’re talking about puppies, why not take this opportunity to post another Oscar the Puppy video?
I went to visit my parents a few weeks ago. My dad is in the process of selling off and giving away some of his massive collection of antiques and other stuff, so he gave me a box of goodies to take home. Included in that box was a wooden bust of John F. Kennedy.
I have a fireplace that separates the dining room from the living room. I put the JFK bust in the dining room on the lower mantle, if that’s what it’s called. I was sitting in the living room the other day and Oscar was walking toward me and then stopped cold in his tracks, turned toward the fireplace and began acting weird. I thought he’d seen a mouse or something (which would really be weird because I’ve never had a mouse in my house) so I went to look. He was freaked out by the JFK bust. I moved the statue to the living room (for better video production) and fired up my iPhone.
At first, I thought Oscar must be a Republican because he was barking and growling at the presidential bust. Then, as you’ll see at the end, he licked JFK’s face. So, maybe he’s a Democrat. I just don’t know.
* The Senate passed gaming expansion with 32 votes yesterday, four shy of a veto-proof majority, although proponents insisted they would’ve reached that mark if all their people were in the chamber. Why is a veto-proof majority important? Because the governor is not yet on board…
While signaling some encouragement for the bill, Quinn’s office stopped short of an outright endorsement of the plan, saying more “improvements” are likely necessary though not specifying them. He has vetoed two earlier gambling-expansion packages dating back to 2011.
“We’re reviewing the bill, it appears to be moving in the right direction,” Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said.
“The ultimate authority is the Gaming Board on every facility in the state, including the city of Chicago,” said sponsoring Sen. Terry Link, D-Waukegan.
That contention, however, will go under the microscope. An aide to the governor said Wednesday that the administration’s main concern is making sure the measure clearly spells out the Gaming Board’s authority. That’s still fuzzy, the aide contended.
Dot points for the gaming bill are here. Expect further changes in the House. Rep. Lou Lang was cut out of negotiations, so they’re gonna have to hear him out now.
Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon, raised concerns that the campaign contribution ban could crimp the ability of small-business owners, bar owners and veterans groups to give even small political donations if they install slot machines.
“What we don’t want is these people back home, who’ve been waiting forever for these machines in their nonprofit facilities, to then write a $20, $50 check to a member of the General Assembly as a campaign contribution and the next thing you know, someone from the Gaming Board is knocking on their door saying that was against state law and, by the way, here’s the penalty,” Righter said.
It’s a good argument, but I doubt Righter would be for it even if the bill was changed.
Link said the bill would provide a financial windfall for the state. The Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability estimated revenues from licensing fees for the slot machines at racetracks, new casinos and new gaming positions at existing casinos would bring in $1.2 billion initially, and $268 million annually after that. “It not only will save thousands of jobs, it will create thousands of jobs, and it will help our educational system for the future,” he said. […]
Link said that according to the COGFA report, of the $268 million projected proceeds, about $128.7 million is slated to go to education. He said he hoped Quinn would recognize the “huge effort” made to incorporate the governor’s suggestions into the current bill.
Representatives from existing casinos say they think the revenue potential is not that large.
Tom Swoik, executive director of the Illinois Casino Gaming Association, said most of the existing operators are not interested in new gaming positions and believe the expansion would cannibalize the 10 already-existing casinos in the state. Swoik said a lot of the money estimated to come from the expansion was already spoken for and would not be available to go to schools. “We believe that this is going to leave very little money for education,” he said.
“I have said repeatedly that if Chicago were to build a casino, all revenue would be directed toward modernizing schools in our neighborhoods and communities,” Emanuel said in a statement. “I encourage all parties in Springfield to take swift action on the gaming bill and, in so doing, create the opportunity for us to rebuild and renew our public education infrastructure in the city.”
† Unworkable deadlines that would have made it too difficult for the Illinois Gaming Board to do its oversight job adequately have been eliminated.
† Internet gambling, which was not fully vetted, has been dropped from the bill.
† Ethics measures, including a ban on campaign contributions by casino operators, have been strengthened.
† A provision that new revenues from a Chicago casino be dedicated to school construction and modernization has been added.
The bill also would create a separate inspector general for the Chicago casino. Our concern in this regard, as the legislation moves forward, is that the new inspector general position not co-op the powers of the existing — and highly vigilant — Gaming Board.
Thursday, May 2, 2013 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
The satellite television industry serves a crucial role in connecting Illinois to the rest of the world with content that informs, entertains and educates – in many instances it’s the exclusive broadcast service provider available to Illinois homes. In addition, the satellite TV industry is an important economic driver creating hundreds of jobs in our state.
Facts About Satellite TV in Illinois:
• Serves 1.3 million households in Illinois (almost a third of homes that subscribe choose satellite)
• Employs over 790 people, plus more than 1,000 technicians at 481 local retailers
• Rural Illinois depends on satellite TV since cable does not often provide service to their area
• Satellite TV offers a wider range of foreign language programming in comparison to cable
Lawmakers continue to be prodded by the cable TV industry to place a NEW 5% monthly tax on satellite TV service. Previous versions of this discriminatory tax proposal have been defeated in Springfield—and similar bills are regularly defeated in other states including three times in neighboring Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota. This revenue generator needs to be clearly labeled what it is: An unfair tax increase on the 1.3 million Illinois families and businesses who subscribe to satellite TV.
There’s a political axiom at the Statehouse that embodies House Speaker Michael Madigan’s record-setting tenure as the Illinois House’s overlord: Never bet against the speaker.
I’ve used that headline time and time again, including back in the days when Lee Daniels was Speaker. It’s a powerful office.
* But I’m not sure I go along with this second graf just yet…
And so it goes with the pension-reform package that the Southwest Side Democrat muscled out of a House committee on Wednesday — putting it on a clear track toward Gov. Pat Quinn’s desk despite anger from unions and an uncertain reception in the state Senate.
There was no muscling in that committee yesterday. The die was already cast.
And the path to Quinn’s desk isn’t totally clear yet because Cullerton is still negotiating with the unions. If Cullerton fails to convince his caucus to go along and can’t pass a bill that Madigan can and/or is willing to pass, then, yeah, that path could very well be cleared. Time will tell.
Even if Cullerton may be holding out hope for a bill that he thinks would better withstand a constitutional challenge, Madigan’s approach seemed designed to win over Senate Republicans and limit Cullerton’s options — down to using one of Radogno’s ideas.
There were 8 Senate Republican “No” votes on the Madicrossbritz bill last month, most of whom have lots of state workers in their districts. So Cullerton probably wouldn’t have to go it alone unless the SGOPs make opposition a caucus positiion.
* Then again, Madigan pretty much always gets what he wants. And if he really and truly wants his bill to become law, Cullerton may have no choice but to go along just to get something done. The unions know this, too, which is why they came up with a “credible” pension plan yesterday.
* And Madigan even went so far yesterday as to predict that the plan would attract a majority of the Supremes…
Madigan said he believes a majority of the state’s seven-member Supreme Court will sign off on the legality of the legislation.
“I think there will be at least four members of the Illinois Supreme Court that will approve the bill,” Madigan said.
“I’m still bothered by the fact that it does not involve all five of our pension systems. The judges are not in this bill. We need to be fair across the board, all five systems,” said state Rep. Dan Brady, R-Bloomington, who represents thousands of university employees, school teachers and retirees potentially affected by the changes.
Rep. Brady is using the judicial stuff as a cover. Good on Erickson.
Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, said he doubted he would support the bill crafted by state Speaker Mike Madigan, D-Chicago. Bost said he questioned the bill’s constitutionality and wondered why individual aspects of the proposal were not given severability if challenged in the courts.
“If Madigan was real with this, and believe he’s the expert at this, he would have put a severability clause in it,” Bost said.
Bost also has “thousands of university employees, school teachers and retirees potentially affected by the changes,” but it ain’t mentioned. Just one excuse after another.
* Related…
* Illinois House showdown on pensions possible today: Among committee members from the suburbs, state Reps. Nekritz, McSweeney, Darlene Senger of Naperville, Tom Morrison of Palatine and Carol Sente of Vernon Hills voted for it. State Rep. Raymond Poe, a Springfield Republican, was the lone “no” vote. Despite his support, Morrison said he still has concerns. The Republican lawmakers has backed a plan that would move public employees to 401k-style retirement plans. “I’m still going to fight for the real reform I think is necessary,” he said.
* Subscribers have some extremely hard to come by details of organized labor’s pension proposal, but let’s start here with Senate President John Cullerton’s press release…
Since the beginning of session, I have made it clear that enacting constitutional pension reform is my top priority. Illinois faces a crisis; we owe it to our children and grandchildren to take action.
I have worked to build consensus for reform within my caucus and across the diverse factions on both sides of the aisle. In these pension discussions, I have expressed a preference for the framework that, in my view, has the best chance of holding up in court. I have also worked to include labor in these conversations.
Today, I concluded a series of meetings with representatives of teachers, nurses, police officers and other public employees. This coalition of labor leaders offered a credible and constitutional plan for consideration.
* From the We Are One Coalition…
Our coalition has consistently said that we want to work together with policymakers to address Illinois’ pension funding problem. We appreciate that, over the past several weeks, Senate President John Cullerton opened up dialogue with us, and we have worked diligently with him to find common ground. Today, we presented President Cullerton with a proposal that is both fair and constitutional, and we are heartened that he has responded positively to our efforts.
Cullerton said [yesterday] afternoon that he has not yet reached a final agreement with union leaders. But he says they have presented him a “substantial proposal” that his caucus will consider along with House Speaker Michael Madigan’s plan, if it passes Thursday.
“We’re not finished talking to them. We might want to make some proposed changes to their proposal. We just got it today,” Cullerton told reporters. “What’s significant is that they’re supportive of a major bill that saves billions of dollars, which I would say they’ve never been before. So that’s a major move. There’s still some details to work out.”
Cullerton said the union’s plan is based on the concept that workers must be offered something in exchange for pension cuts. He has maintained that without such a trade, any bill that reduces retirement benefits would be unconstitutional. “Since it’s not unilateral cuts, it doesn’t save as much money, but it’s billions of dollars,” he said of the union proposal.
When asked if he would call Madigan’s bill, Cullerton said he would consult his members. “We’re going to hopefully see what the caucus wants to do, whether they want to support that bill, or the bill that the unions are supportive [of] or a combination thereof.” He noted that the Senate has already rejected a bill similar to the one the House plans to vote on Thursday. “We’ll see if this has any differences that get more people to be supportive, but you know, it’s not like we haven’t voted on this already,” Cullerton said.
Speaker Madigan plans to call his own pension bill today. We’ll discuss that in another post. Also, make sure to keep a close eye on the session live blog post for updates on this and other issues as the day goes on.
* Henry Bayer testifying in committee yesterday against House Speaker Michael Madigan’s new pension reform bill…
“It’s good that you’re not kicking the can down the road,” said Bayer, executive director of the 40,000-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “It’s bad that you’re kicking our members in the butt.”
