* A federal judge has issued a new ruling in the same sex marriage debate…
U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin last month ordered Cook County Clerk David Orr to issue a marriage license to Patricia Ewert and Vernita Gray, who is battling terminal cancer. The couple’s lawyer argued that they deserved the license because Gray’s prognosis means she may not survive to marry when the law goes into effect. Orr, who supports same sex marriage, opted not to defend his office against the suit.
Today, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman issued a ruling that will allow all same-sex couples facing life-threatening illness to apply for marriage licenses before the law kicks in on June 1, 2014. As part of the lawsuit, two couples — Elvie Jordan and Challis Gibbs, and Ronald Dorfman and Ken Ilio — were specifically granted license applications. Dorfman has been diagnosed with a heart condition, and Gibbs has cancer. The ruling creates a legal “subclass” of couples, who have an “urgent need” to marry before the effective date.
“Given the Illinois General Assembly’s enactment of Senate Bill 10, any erroneous decision here would only result in allowing a relatively few people to marry a short period of time sooner,” Johnson Coleman wrote in her ruling. “The harm to the putative subclass of medically critical plaintiffs, on the other hand, would be far weightier since a denial of relief could effectively deny them the right to marry at all if one member of the couple passes away before June 1, 2014.” Couples in the state seeking to marry immediately because one or both have a life-threatening illness must get a recommendation from a doctor. Couples must have a doctor complete this certification form, available on the Cook County clerk’s website. Once couples get a certification, they can continue through the standard process of obtaining a marriage license.
* From a press release…
“When you have a terminal illness, every day is significant. Even though we know the freedom to marry is coming to Illinois, the default implementation date of the new law is too far away for these couples,” said Camilla Taylor, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal. “While no one should be told that they cannot marry for a period of months, for couples who are dealing with a life-threatening medical condition, the delay in implementing Illinois’ marriage law could turn out to be an absolute bar to being married at all. We thank the Court and the clerk’s office for their swift response to ensure that Illinois couples who are struggling with the challenges of a life-threatening illness will have a chance to be married.”
22 Comments  
|
Rauner’s pension defense
Monday, Dec 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Kurt Erickson talks about Bruce Rauner’s attack on public employee pensions…
The ultra wealthy hedge fund manager who is running for the Republican nomination for governor wants to freeze state worker pensions at their current levels and switch everyone to a 401(k)-style retirement savings program.
This is ironic because Rauner became rich, in part, by investing and managing public pension funds, including the Illinois Teachers Retirement System.
While school teachers, prison guards, university employees and child welfare workers are staring at a revamped pension plan that will bite into their future earning power, Rauner is enjoying the fruits of his investments.
He reported earning over $100 million in the past three years alone. Reports indicate he has eight homes, including ranches out West, penthouses in New York and Chicago and a beach house in Florida.
Rauner’s handlers didn’t make him available to discuss the disconnect between Rauner’s riches and his position on ending pension plans for public servants.
But, Rauner’s campaign spokesman said Rauner’s investment firm GTCR delivered ample returns for the pension systems at a time when lawmakers and former governors were not sufficiently funding them.
“So on one side you had the politicians creating the problem and on the other you had GTCR and Bruce creating tremendous returns,” spokesman Mike Schrimpf said.
I suppose I can see the logic in that Schrimpf statement, but I’m not sure that it’s an easy argument to make, especially considering his great wealth.
I mean, $53 million a year is over a million dollars a week, which breaks down to over $200K a day for each work day. He’s making more in a day than most retirees will make in five, six or even more years.
And if you think pointing that out is “class warfare,” then what is Rauner doing?
Thoughts?
* By the way, Rauner disclosed another $100,000 in contributions this morning, including $25K from Contractors for Free Enterprise, which is the political arm of the anti-union Associated Builders & Contractors.
51 Comments
|
A bit too much tinfoil, perhaps
Monday, Dec 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* As we’ve already discussed, the Tribune sharply criticized Republicans who voted against the pension reform bill. Rep. Jeanne Ives responds…
The Tribune may bend to the will of Mike Madigan and provide political cover to the same people who brought us the most unfunded pension systems in the country but I will not. Our party’s stance in the ILGA is to uphold fiscal responsibility and strong policy at every decision-point. Let’s not retreat from this mission.
…said the same state legislator who voted for Madigan’s very similar bill back in May.
Also, say what you want about the Chicago Tribune editorial page (and we all have), but its being in Mike Madigan’s back pocket is definitely not part of reality. I think we can all agree on that - at least, those of us who regularly inhabit this planet and not some alternate universe.
31 Comments
|
* Good news…
The new budget agreement making its way through Congress should have “significant benefits” for the University of Illinois and its researchers, its chief federal lobbyist says.
The two-year deal struck by Republicans and Democrats last week, and approved Thursday by the House, would provide partial relief for the cuts imposed by the budget sequester last spring and give federal agencies some certainty in budget planning, said Jon Pyatt, UI director of federal relations.
“We really see this as a positive sign. We’ve been lurching from crisis to crisis for the last several years,” Pyatt said.
* Bad news…
University of Illinois Board Chair Chris Kennedy is sounding an alarm, worried a bid by the school and its partners for a $70 million federal Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute grant may be influenced by a senator’s clout — and end up in Huntsville, Ala.
Kennedy, noting the clout history of Illinois — harking back to the days when the late Rep. Dan Rostenkowki, D-Ill., could vastly influence decisions — told me Sunday, “there is a certain irony to the fact that we may lose a big federal grant to clout.”
More…
“The university has lots of supporters, elected officials, government workers, and that network is providing us with feedback, and that feedback is indicating perhaps a certain United States senator is so focused on bringing home this grant to his Southern state that we may not get it,” Kennedy said.
The senator in question is Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., is the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee Defense spending subcommittee, and this is a Defense Department project. Durbin has written two letters to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to bolster the U. of I. bid, on Aug. 8 and Nov. 8. Durbin’s Nov. 8 letter was signed by a total of 16 senators, including Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.
If Durbin gets outmaneuvered by Shelby on this one, then what good is he? I mean, the Senate is majority Democratic, he’s chairman of a powerful subcommittee and is the number 2 guy in Senate leadership.
C’mon, man.
29 Comments
|
* There’s little doubt that the US Attorney’s office did a really poor job at oral arguments last week in Rod Blagojevich’s appeal. Listen to the whole thing if you can…
That person just wasn’t prepared.
* AP…
During an hour-long hearing that was sometimes contentious, three judges of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals frequently interrupted a prosecutor and pressed her to explain just how the 56-year-old Illinois Democrat’s actions had strayed into criminality. […]
Blagojevich’s attorneys want the court to toss his corruption convictions or at least agree to slash years off his 14-year prison term, which is one of the longest ever imposed for political corruption in a state where four of the last seven governors have ended up in prison.
In seeking a cabinet post - possibly as secretary of health and human services - in exchange for a Senate appointment, Blagojevich was merely seeking to further political causes he’d long championed, including health care, Blagojevich attorney Leonard Goodman told judges.
“Mr. Blagojevich’s defense is, ‘I thought this was (legal) political horse trading,’” said Goodman, adding that Blagojevich was an avid student of political history and was therefore conscious of not crossing that line. “This wasn’t some backroom deal.”
* OK, that’s total bunk. He knew that at least some of what he was doing could very well be illegal. How do we know that? The tapes.
From a December 4th conversation about appointing Jesse Jackson, Jr. to Obama’s Senate seat…
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah. Well I would think if you do appoint him and I don’t know who the money centers are in the black community, but you gotta get me focused on them or somebody focused on them…
BLAGOJEVICH: What, here’s, here’s what you’ve got to do. You gotta talk to Raghu. You gotta call him and say hey, look. You know, Jesse Jr. you know, I think a Ro-, Rod’s meeting with him at some point. Very much a real-, a realistic, and you should just let him know, you know, the Durbins and the others behind the scenes, they don’t want him. They’re afraid.
“Raghu” is Raghu Nayak, a major fundraiser for both Jackson, Jr. and Blagojevich…
Federal authorities alleged Nayak offered to raise up to $6 million in campaign cash for Blagojevich if he used his power to name Jackson as President Barack Obama’s replacement in the U.S. Senate after the 2008 election.
* Rod knew this deal could be a very big problem. From the same conversation with his brother…
BLAGOJEVICH: You understand? Now you gotta be careful how you express that. And assume everybody’s listening, the whole world’s listening.
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: Right.
BLAGOJEVICH: You hear me?
* From the very next morning, the same day the Tribune ran a story about how Blagojevich pal Wyma was cooperating with the feds…
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: I got a meeting today at one
BLAGOJEVICH: Raghu.
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah.
BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah. I don’t know if you should do it.
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: Right.
BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah.
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: So is that a definitive no?
BLAGOJEVICH: Probably, yeah. Give me a little while, but I’m sure it’s a no. Just, you know, just re-, say we’ll see you tomorrow and Harish Bhatt and all that stuff, you know what I’m sayin’?
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah. (PAUSE)
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: Okay.
BLAGOJEVICH: Okay.
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: Alright.
BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah and I’m sure it’s gonna be a no.
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: Okay. Very good.
BLAGOJEVICH: In fact, just do it. Go ahead just call him and say, well, it’s too obvious right now ’cause of this story.
* Later that morning…
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: Alright just to let you know what’s goin’ on today we got this Hispanic event.
BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah I know, I know all that. So, yeah, undo your Raghu thing.
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: Ah, done.
BLAGOJEVICH: Yeah.
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: Done.
* Back to Friday’s hearing…
With some passion behind his remarks, [former chief judge of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the conservative Frank Easterbrook] asked if there was “any criminal conviction in U.S. history” other than Blagojevich’s in which a politician was convicted for trying to trade one job for another.
“I’m aware of none,” responded the government’s Debra Bonamici.
Her answer seemed to hang in the air for a bit as courtroom observers took that in.
Easterbrook described how in the run-up to the 1952 presidential election, then-California Gov. Earl Warren offered to use his post to “deliver California” for Eisenhower in return for a seat on the Supreme Court. It was a deal that Eisenhower eventually honored.
“If I understand your position, Earl Warren should have gone to prison, Dwight Eisenhower should have gone to prison,” Easterbrook implored. “Can that possibly be right?”
Her eventual answer was nuanced, including explaining the allegations included Blagojevich’s attempt to have a 501c (4) set up for him to head if he appointed Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate.
I happen to mostly agree with Easterbrook here. But the prosecutor should’ve focused on some of the more clear-cut issues, like the shakedown of a children’s hospital for a big campaign contribution. He ordered a beneficial state rule held up until he got his money. That’s clearly illegal.
*** UPDATE *** Wordslinger blasts Easterbrook’s comparison to the Eisenhower situation…
That’s nonsense. Show me, in any written history, that Warren made such an “offer” and that Eisenhower agreed to “honor” it.
As it was, 77 of the 90-member California delegation voted for Warren at the convention, so Warren hardly “delivered” the state to Ike.
How the U.S. attorney could let that fiction slide just shows how unprepared the office was.
The facts:
In 1952, Gov. Warren ran as a favorite son, and thought he had the 90-vote California delegation sewn up. In truth, Sen. Nixon spent the train ride from Sacramento to Chicago picking off a handful of Warren delegates for Ike.
Because of this, in part, Ike’s biggest backers, Gov. Dewey and Gen. Clay, recommended him for VP. Nixon was also considered an attractive VP candidate for his youth, war service and for being from the booming West. In addition, he served as a bridge between the right-wing isolationists (for the Hiss case) and the moderate East Coast internationalists (for his support of NATO).
After Ike was elected president, he nominated Warren for solicitor general, with the idea of appointing him to the next open Supreme Court seat, which he did.
But that was to keep Warren from being a primary rival in 1956 and to placate the liberal wing of the GOP, just as Lincoln did with Salmon Chase and the Radical Republicans in 1864.
37 Comments
|
Rauner’s new TV ad focuses on term limits
Monday, Dec 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Rate it…
Mentioning George Washington and Ronald Reagan was a bit much, particularly since Reagan wanted to repeal the 22nd Amendment…
During his final days in office, President Ronald Reagan vows to continue speaking out on issues that concern him. Among other things, Reagan says he will push for repeal of the 22nd amendment that limits a president to just two terms in office.
But it’ll probably work very well with the tea party crowd.
* From the Rauner campaign…
Bruce Rauner’s campaign launched a new television ad focused on his push for term limits. Bruce is chairman of the Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits, which recently announced it has already collected more than half the signatures necessary to place a Constitutional amendment enacting term limits on the legislature on the November 2014 ballot.
Click the link to watch the ad: http://bit.ly/1bFYpl7
“Out-of-control spending, record tax hikes, terrible unemployment and a state government controlled by special interests - the career politicians are failing Illinois, and Pat Quinn is the worst of all,” said Bruce Rauner. “I’ll put an end to the self-dealing and drive results for taxpayers.”
“I’m running to create a booming economy, clean up state government, dramatically improve education and enact term limits,” Rauner said. “And unlike the career politicians running Springfield right now, I’ll make it happen.”
* I shouldn’t have to remind you, but support for term limits is almost off the charts in Illinois…
When asked if they’d be more or less likely to support a GOP gubernatorial candidate “who supports a constitutional amendment limiting the number of terms state legislators may serve,” 76 percent of Republicans said they’d be more likely, while a mere 13 percent said they’d be less likely and 12 percent said it made no difference [according to a Capitol Fax/We Ask America poll].
And…
The Paul Simon poll found 79 percent [of Illinoisans] favored term limits, a number consistent with previous polls.
36 Comments
|
Ryan, Castro, Mandela and the death penalty
Monday, Dec 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The story…
Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan says Nelson Mandela was instrumental in his 2003 decision to empty death row. […]
Ryan and Mandela met in 2000 on a trade mission to South Africa.
Ryan said Sunday to hearty applause that Mandela called him ahead of his decision to empty death row and it inspired him. Ryan drew national attention for emptying death row, which led to Illinois abolishing the death penalty in 2011.
* The back story…
Back in 2000, staff members for then-Gov. Ryan tried to get a meeting with Mandela during the trip but were rebuffed, Ryan recalled.
“We were told that Nelson Mandela was a busy man and that he only met with heads of nations and world leaders,” Ryan told the mostly full church at 6430 S. Harvard in Englewood.
But then someone in the trade group had an epiphany. Ryan, who met with Cuban leader Fidel Castro the previous year, had maintained friendly enough relations with the communist dictator that his staffers were comfortable asking a favor of Castro, who was a close ally of Mandela’s.
“The staff I had called back to Cuba, to Fidel Castro, who had a long personal, affectionate relationship with Nelson Mandela over the years and asked if he could put in a good word,” Ryan said. “Don’t you know what happened? We had a meeting.”
* And then…
Several years later, after Ryan had imposed a moratorium on the executions in Illinois, Mandela called him while Ryan was contemplating commuting the sentences of inmates on Death Row.
“I hadn’t decided what my decision was going to be, and Nelson Mandela called me from South Africa and asked me to do what I [eventually] did and it had an impact on my actions,” Ryan said.
15 Comments
|
Digital-only application process riles some
Monday, Dec 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* You’ll be able to begin the application process for a concealed carry permit with the Illinois State Police on January 5th, but only online. And that troubles some folks…
“We want the ability to have a choice,” said state Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat. “You’ve got people in some rural areas who don’t have access to computers or who might not understand the technology.”
But Illinois State Police officials say they’re not set up to process paper applications.
* More…
Illinois State Police spokeswoman Monique Bond said there is no procedure in place for applicants to send in a paper application.
“At this time we will only be accepting applications online,” Bond said. “It is more efficient, cost-effective and easier for other agencies to communicate throughout the application process.”
While Phelps said he understands the state police reasoning and agrees a paper application could slow the approval process, he said the option should still be available for people who don’t have computers or Internet access.
“It’s a big deal that needs to be addressed,” Phelps said.
* More…
National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde says he’s anxious the concealed carry rollout will mirror the Affordable Care Act signup mess. He’s pressing the state police to accept paper, as well as online, applications.
“There are people in this state who don’t have the ability to scan documents, who are over 55 and don’t live on a computer every day like the tech generation does,” he says. “We’re trying to make this reasonably accessible for everybody. But the state police seem to be in a very narrow mindset about that, and are trying to force everything in a digital model, which they don’t even seem to be able to get right.”
The story above also claims that this page isn’t working on some browsers. It didn’t work on one of my browsers last week, but it is working today. Does it work for you?
47 Comments
|
Durkin cuts off Caprio’s access to voter file
Monday, Dec 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Family-Pac’s Paul Caprio is upset that House Republican Leader Jim Durkin has barred Caprio’s group from using the Republican voter file to run candidates against Durkin’s incumbents in the Republican primary. That may sound like a no-brainer to you, but Caprio is furious and sent a letter to rank and file House Republicans last week…
December 12, 2013
Dear Representative,
For the past decade, Family-Pac has had a cordial working relationship with the HRO.
Although we haven’t always agreed on the best Republican candidates in the primaries, I think Tom Cross would tell you that Family-Pac has provided key assistance to pro-family GOP candidates in many general election contests.
In return, the House GOP leadership has always allowed us use of the Republican Party voter file.
Unfortunately, under the leadership of Jim Durkin this policy was changed without notice. Family-Pac’s ability to use OUR voter file has been terminated by Durkin.
I asked the reason for the change and was told by an HRO political operative it was because Family-Pac was opposing two GOP incumbents in the upcoming March 2014 Primary who had supported same sex marriage.
Forty-four of you opposed same sex marriage (SB10) in support of your national and state platforms. Now Family-Pac is discriminated against for supporting your position.
If Jim Durkin wants to focus his campaign efforts on supporting these two candidates instead of recruiting strong candidates in target districts against Democrats, that’s his prerogative. However, to use the vote on same sex marriage to determine HRO’s relationship with a long-time ally like Family-Pac, I believe, is extremely foolish.
We view this as another effort to marginalize the conservative base which is so important to the success of the pro-family candidates. These continued insults are one of the reasons that the GOP finds itself in such a weakened position in Illinois.
Thank you again for your support of our common values.
Sincerely,
Paul Caprio
* Caprio also forwarded the letter to his allies with this e-mail…
Coalition Members:
I’ve attached a copy of a letter I sent yesterday to all Illinois Republican House members.
As you can see this is yet another effort to further close the Party to social conservatives.
I can assure you that this reckless action by Jim Durkin will not hinder our efforts to defeat GOP candidates who were the deciding votes to pass same sex marriage. GOP Primary decisions should be decided by individual voters, not dictated by would-be political bosses like Jim Durkin.
Paul
To me, anyway, this looks very much like the same fight that Speaker Boehner is dealing with in DC.
31 Comments
|
Kim backgrounder
Monday, Dec 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Kankakee Daily Journal has a bio piece on Steve Kim, who is Treasurer Dan Rutherford’s running mate…
Kim is a successful businessman. An attorney, he advises companies on regulation and has offices around the world. He was a special assistant on international trade during the administration of Gov. Jim Edgar and sits on the advisory committee for trade set up by Sen. Mark Kirk.
Kim’s father, Kenneth, was a pharmacist in Seoul. He and his wife, Helen, might have settled elsewhere, but they ran out of bus fare in Illinois and remained here. His mother ran a dry cleaners in Skokie.
“Their dream was the American dream,” he said. “Work hard. Save. Own your own business. Send your children to college.”
Kim is a graduate of Loyola Law School. He and his wife, Misuk, live in Northbrook. They want a good life for their son, Lincoln, 19 months. “For Christmas we got him a stuffed elephant,” Kim said.
* A photo from his event…
Caption?
And, I know I don’t have to say this, but just in case some stupid yahoo stumbles in here, any attempt at racial humor will be met with a highly unpleasant response from me.
Thanks.
31 Comments
|
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
House Speaker Michael Madigan’s spokesman said last week that his boss’ statement opposing further corporate “handouts” basically “speaks for itself.” But does it?
Madigan invoked the populist gods last week as he called for an end to the “case-by-case system of introducing and debating legislation whenever a corporation is looking for free money from Illinois taxpayers.” Companies requesting the tax breaks, Madigan said, “pay little to no corporate income tax to the state, contributing little or nothing to help fund the very services from which they benefit significantly.”
It would be much easier to believe Madigan had he not just last month pushed a bill over to the Illinois Senate which would give Univar a tax break to help the west coast corporation move its headquarters to Illinois. Not coincidentally, Univar has an existing facility just next door to Madigan’s House district.
The Senate refused to pass the stand-alone Univar bill, opting instead to include the Univar break in a wider package benefiting OfficeMax and ADM. That bill cruised through the Senate, but Madigan didn’t allow it to be called in the House after the pension reform proposal was approved.
So, Madigan’s infamous transactional nature and the traditional tension between the two chambers both appear to be playing into this.
Contrast Madigan’s statement about corporate “handouts” with Senate President John Cullerton’s staunch defense of his chamber’s passage of the tax breaks. “We’re not giving any money to corporations, we’re bringing jobs to Illinois,” Cullerton said. “These specific bills that we passed, they are new jobs that are being added. So we’re not taking any money away from anybody or giving money to corporations, we’re adding jobs that aren’t here now.”
But even Cullerton whittled down the list of companies seeking government assistance. Zurich North America wanted a tax break to help it with its already announced headquarters move from one part of Schaumburg into another, but it was left out of the final deal. Suburban video game developer High Voltage Software has asked for assistance dealing with overseas competition, but it was also removed from the Senate’s package.
Several other corporate execs have also quietly reached out to inquire about tax incentives, insiders say, so the relative trickle could become a raging flood very soon. Madigan appears to have wanted to stop this trend before it got out of hand.
There is also some continuing tension between Madigan and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who refused to publicly endorse a specific ADM tax break bill. Emanuel wants Decaturbased ADM’s new “world headquarters” to be located in Chicago, but hizzoner never publicly requested the subsidy the company wants, and Madigan didn’t want his members taking heat for “corporate welfare” while Chicago’s mayor benefitted without cost.
This move also has a macro side. Madigan has never really cared much about the publicity he gets, but after he was publicly singled out by gay marriage proponents as the main impediment to the bill’s passage, Madigan helped push the legislation over the top and then took credit in an unusual post-vote press conference with the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris
Madigan then gave himself full credit for passage of the pension reform bill, claiming that the bill couldn’t have passed without his own leadership. His statement blatantly ignored the undeniable fact of Senate President Cullerton’s massive policy shift on pension reform, which was what really led to the bill’s success. More importantly, though, the Speaker’s statement signaled yet again that he wanted praise for his accomplishments - something he’s never asked for in the past.
And now this move designed to curry favor with the vast majority of voters.
After years of not caring, why does he care now? One obvious reason is the upcoming gubernatorial election.
“Dealing with Madigan” has already become the most important issue in the Republican primary, with Bruce Rauner regularly denouncing Madigan and all four candidates claiming they’re the right guy to bring the most powerful Democrat in Illinois’ history to heel.
It’s highly doubtful that Madigan’s PR ploy will work. The media and the Republican establishment have been blasting Madigan for over thirty years. A sustained attack like that simply cannot be effectively countered in a few months via media coverage alone.
Madigan, at the age of 71 with almost 43 years in the House and close to 29 years as Speaker, is also undoubtedly taking stock of his legacy and has apparently decided that he’d better get his, um, house in order. This state has suffered badly. And while he shouldn’t get all the blame, he has to know that he will anyway.
* Kurt Erickson believes it was all about the “optics”…
I prefer to think that Madigan was just trying to avoid the bad optics first floated in a story I wrote back in late September.
Here’s the first paragraph of the story:
“At the same time Illinois lawmakers are expected to debate a plan to strip retirement benefits from teachers, prison guards and university employees, they also may take up a proposal to deliver tax breaks to one of the state’s biggest corporations.”
Flash forward from September to December and that was exactly the scenario facing lawmakers in the House as they voted to approve a plan to reduce pension benefits for tens of thousands of workers and retirees.
What would it have said had they then turned around that same day and gave away millions of dollars in tax breaks to a successful company like ADM so its top brass could be closer to a large international airport?
Except the Senate did just that, overwhelmingly passing the bill with the support of Republicans like Sens. Bill Brady and Kirk Dillard. Just five Democrats voted “No.”
26 Comments
|
Your chance to weigh in
Monday, Dec 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I told you about this late Friday afternoon, but you didn’t get a chance to comment, so…
The governor collected more than $70,000 in uncashed paychecks held since last summer by Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka at his request in a move originally intended to show his commitment toward solving the state’s $100 billion pension crisis.
And in one other bit of end-of-the-week housekeeping, Quinn dropped his appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court in his dispute with House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, and Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, over whether he had the authority as governor to withhold legislators’ paychecks to drive a legislative bargain on pensions.
“We are moving forward. Illinois is moving forward,” Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said.
33 Comments
|
This just in…
Friday, Dec 13, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* 4:30 pm - The governor’s office informs me that Gov. Pat Quinn has dropped his appeal of the legislative pay lawsuit and has accepted his paychecks.
Quinn was appealing an unfavorable lower court ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court. Quinn had vetoed legislative salaries from the state budget, saying members shouldn’t be paid until pension reform passed.
As part of that effort, Quinn also vowed not to accept his pay checks until pension reform was addressed by the General Assembly. He got his checks today.
Comments Off
|
Campaign odds and ends
Friday, Dec 13, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Heh…
UPDATE x1: Dillard’s attendance at Obama’s 2009 inauguration stirs controversy
UPDATE x1: This story has generated a surprising amount of reaction.
Rich Miller at CapitolFax thought the accusation about Dillard attending the 2009 Obama inauguration was the “pot calling the kettle black” given Rauner’s history of contributions to Democrats.
The Dillard campaign reacted as well. A spokesman for the campaign contacted IR and voiced his displeasure and disappointment that IR didn’t “tell [our] low-information readers that this was clearly NOT a donation.”
Finally, Dillard shows some backbone. More like this, please. And I don’t mean he should be whacking IR again, either. I just mean he ought to tell us where he is and where he wants the state to go, regardless of his audience.
* My vote for creepiest Tweet of the year which was then retweeted by an Illinois candidate…
Oy.
* From The Fix’s top 15 gubernatorial races of 2014…
5. Illinois (D): Can Quinn keep up the momentum he built this year in 2014? Things will get more difficult for him after the March primary, when the eventual Republican nominee can focus on him, not the competitive three-way GOP primary underway right now. Businessman Bruce Rauner is competing for the Republican nomination with state Sens. Kirk Dillard and Bill Brady. (Previous ranking: 5)
Notice anybody missing from the GOP field? I know we’re just in fly-over country, but that Washington Post blog is supposed to be a must-see.
14 Comments
|
Throw the book at him
Friday, Dec 13, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Last March, Stephen Bona left this message on State Rep. Jeanne Ives’ voice mail…
“Your Tea Party brethren Sarah Palin put up a map that included the names, locations, and faces of Democratic candidates and put them in the cross hairs of a gun…perhaps we should do the same for you. We know where you live. There’s no longer a ban on assault weapons. Think about that before you speak next time, [expletive].”
Bona got himself all worked up after Ives made some seriously goofy anti gay marriage comments.
* Amazingly enough, the guy called Ives again…
Charges have been upgraded to a felony for a Chicago man accused of threatening a state representative over gay marriage remarks. Police say shortly after Stephen Bona, of Chicago, was charged with a misdemeanor for placing a threatening voice mail at Jeanne Ives’ district office, he placed another call to her, leading them to change the misdemeanor charges to threatening a public official, a Class 3 felony. If convicted, Bona could face up to five years in jail.
* And now Bona’s attorney claims the calls were constitutionally protected free speech…
A man charged with threatening a state representative from Wheaton for her radio show comments disparaging gay marriage is attempting to have the charges dismissed, claiming his perceived threats are constitutionally protected free speech.
Bona’s attorney, Joanie Rae Wimmer argued during a Wednesday hearing before DuPage Judge Blanche Hill Fawell that the case should be dismissed because Bona did not specifically threaten Ives.
“The law is pretty clear that you only get outside the realm of constitutionally protected speech if you mean to convey an intent on your part to do harm to someone else,” Wimmer said. “I don’t believe that he did that. There are a number of cases where a speaker suggests to the listener that violence could befall them if they continue their course of action.”
Assistant State’s Attorney Jim Scaliatine argued that the fact that Bona left the message “on a machine, directly to (Ives)” removes the protections of the First Amendment.
“This is clearly a threat,” he said.
I think it’s pretty darned clear there was an attempt to personally convey to Ives that she was in danger of harm.
I make my living on the 1st Amendment. But if someone left a comment on this blog saying what Bona said I would turn his IP address over to the cops and demand immediate action. Personal threats of violence against elected officials have zero place in a free society and nobody has the “right” to make those threats.
So “think about that before you speak next time,” Mr. Bona. It is my opinion that a judge should send you away for the maximum term allowable under law. How about that for free speech?
22 Comments
|
Question of the day
Friday, Dec 13, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The 2013 Steve Brown Golden Horseshoe Award for Best Government Spokesperson goes to Patti Thompson…
I’d like to nominate Patti Thompson, the PIO for the Illinois Emergency Management Agency. She has one of the most chaotic jobs a spokesperson can have dealing with the amazing flood of inquiries that come with disasters in the national media eye and the November tornados were no exception. Calls were coming on from around the globe (literally) and she was at it 20 hours a day for a week to make sure people were getting answers. On top of all that she has to maintain a good working knowledge of everything from school safety programs to the complexity of the nuclear safety programs. She keeps up a great socail media campaign and keeps the monthly preparedness themes relevant and useful. Great PIO!
* Runner-up is Rikeesha Phelon…
The Senate Dems have been out on a limb a number of times this year and she’s done a great job of articulating their position. She is tough and smart.
Congrats to both.
* Instead of a question today, let’s do a couple more categories…
* Best Illinois State Representative - Republican
* Best Illinois State Representative - Democrat
Rep. Jim Durkin was our GOP winner last year and now he’s the House Republican Leader. Rep. Elaine Nekrtiz was our Democratic winner last year and this year her dogged efforts helped make pension reform a reality. Pretty prescient votes on your part.
* Remember, this is about intensity far more than the number of votes, so make extra sure to explain your nominations in both categories. Thanks.
30 Comments
|
“Like a business”
Friday, Dec 13, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From WQAD TV…
“I want to run this state like a business,” said Rauner.
* From the Quincy Herald Whig…
“We need to run the state like a business,” [Sen. Kirk Dillard] said.
* Treasurer Dan Rutherford…
“Illinois should manage like a business and strategically plan.”
* From the 2010 campaign…
We’re adding Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Bill Brady to our long list of candidates for public office-from both major parties-that have pledged if elected to “run government like a business.”
Brady made his pledge while addressing the Kendall County Republican Party’s annual pig roast Aug. 28 near Yorkville.
Discuss.
72 Comments
|
Today’s must-read
Friday, Dec 13, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Sun-Times has a very long and very good story today about the intersection between politics, corporate lobbying and not-for-profits…
In 2000, in the midst of a bruising but ultimately victorious Democratic primary battle against then-state Sen. Barack Obama, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) launched the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corp.
Funded with a $1 million grant from telecommunications giant SBC and the promise of another $175,000 from Congress, the not-for-profit agency’s aim was to help revive the violence-plagued South Side neighborhood, Rush said.
A key element of that, Rush and SBC said, would be the creation of the Bobby L. Rush Center for Community Technology. […]
The money from SBC — now called AT&T — would go toward the center, which was supposed to teach computer skills to neighborhood residents and serve as a small-business incubator in a community that badly needed one.
And the $175,000 in taxpayer money later approved by Rush’s colleagues in Congress was supposed to buy and renovate a building near 68th and Halsted to house the facility.
More than a decade later, though, there’s no technology center. And it’s unclear what happened to the money.
It’s unclear from the story whether this was pure incompetence or pilfering or both, but one thing you need to remember when reading the piece is this…
Rush has served since 1995 on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees telecommunications and energy. For years, he has been on its telecommunications subcommittee, with a key role in telecom legislation.
Go read the whole thing.
23 Comments
|
Illinois bond sale goes well
Friday, Dec 13, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Bloomberg…
Less than two weeks after Illinois lawmakers broke through decades of gridlock and passed a bill to bolster the worst-funded U.S. state pension system, taxpayers are already seeing the benefits.
The state sold $350 million of taxable general-obligation bonds yesterday to pay for work on roads, bridges, schools and public transportation. Debt due in December 2038 priced to yield 5.65 percent, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The 1.84 percentage points of extra yield above benchmark Treasuries was almost a third less than in a comparable sale in April, Bloomberg data show.
The 29 percent reduction from eight months ago saves more than $20 million over the life of the securities, according to Abdon Pallasch, assistant budget director for Illinois, which has the lowest credit grade among states. Standard & Poor’s signaled this week that the accord on retirement costs could trigger a ratings increase.
“The market recognizes that this is a clear improvement and that the credit risk of the state is diminished as a result of this pension action,” said Chris Mier, chief municipal strategist at Loop Capital Markets in Chicago.
That’s kind of a bit of fun with numbers. If the biz powers that be hadn’t opposed Senate President Cullerton’s “A-B” plan over a year ago, we’d be much further along with this process by now.
* Umm…
But the Democratic governor’s glee over the savings was tempered by Republican Treasurer Dan Rutherford, who estimated the state could have saved $70 million more if its credit rating was top-notch and not the worst in the nation.
“We are several tens of millions of dollars worse because we’re not triple-A,” said Rutherford, who is running for governor in the March GOP primary.
I tend to side with Rutherford on the bill’s constitutional questions. However, left up to Rutherford, that bill would not have been signed into law. I don’t know how he intends to get us to AAA ratings with New York by refusing to play New York’s game. And pension reform was definitely a NY game.
* From a Sen. Bill Brady press release…
(A)ccording to State Senator Bill Brady (R-Bloomington) the interest rates Illinois got are proof that passing pension reform, while the tough choice, was the right choice.
“Voting for pension reform last week was by no means an easy vote, but today’s bond rates are proof that we made the right decision,” said Brady. “With this latest bond sale our penalty decreased by 29%. That’s huge improvement and good news for Illinois.”
* More from the Trib…
“This is a tangible, positive development — a positive dividend of (pension) reform for taxpayers,” said Matt Fabian, managing director of Connecticut-based Municipal Market Advisors. “It’s hard to see this as anything else.”
* Meanwhile, the Illinois Policy Institute’s Scott Reeder threw the kitchen sink at the pension reform law in his most recent syndicated column…
After all, is freedom really worth dying for?
Yes, it is.
The men who charged the beaches of Normandy knew that all too well. So did those who gave their lives at Hue and Iwo Jima.
Imagine where we would be today if George Washington had chosen to compromise rather than fight. British tyranny would have prevailed and the greatest nation on earth would never have been born.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. recognized the temptation to compromise and addressed it in his great “I Have a Dream” speech:
“We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice.”
Dr. King knew some things just were non-negotiable.
Nowhere in that speech will one find the soothing balm of compromise.
Those who are regular readers of this column know that I don’t often take a middle ground.
As they say in Texas, “The middle of the road is a fine place to be – if you’re a dead armadillo.”
Some things in life are non-negotiable.
In a recent column, I was blunt in explaining why the recent pension compromise was bad for our state and will do little to resolve the Land of Lincoln’s ongoing fiscal ailments.
I wish I was wrong.
But I cannot remain silent on a matter that imperils the future of this great state.
40 Comments
|
Cross hit over basically nothing
Friday, Dec 13, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Meh…
A $4,800 contribution to the Cross for Treasurer campaign from Chicago gay rights activist Clark Pellett is raising questions about Cross’ critical vote last month to legalize gay marriage. Up until the day of the vote, Cross’ staff consistently assured conservatives that Cross would be a solid “no” vote.
Pellett, who is in a same-sex relationship with Chicago’s Robert Kohl, is credited with having a leadership role in passing Illinois’ gay marriage law. For years, Pellett was active in the Republican Party as Chicago GOP’s chairman. He has also donated to Cross’ political campaigns over the years.
Pellett’s check, reported to the Illinois State Board of Elections Thursday, brought Cross’ gay marriage vote back into the spotlight because his support for the measure was unexpected, and the bill narrowly passed with one vote more than needed.
“We were surprised when Cross voted yes,” Illinois Family Action’s David E. Smith told Illinois Review. “He lied to us. Absolutely, he lied.”
“Had the three Republicans that voted for gay marriage held firm to the party platform, we’d still be fighting the issue in Springfield,” Smith said.
Cross is pro-choice, voted for medical marijuana, supported the (renewed) Equal Rights Amendment and backed stem cell research. His vote shouldn’t have been a huge surprise.
And, yes, the fact that Cross’ vote will help him raise money in the gay community is most definitely a plus. It was simply good politics in a state like this. His Democratic opponent was a prominent supporter, so Cross took a big issue off the table that allows him to tap into money that wouldn’t have been there otherwise.
But just one contribution so far? C’mon. If anything, that ought to be a disappointment for Cross’ campaign.
* Also, party platforms are only important to some of the people who write them. They aren’t statutes. And they shouldn’t be used to keep the party small and exclusive, especially in a state dominated by Democrats.
20 Comments
|
Today’s numbers
Friday, Dec 13, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Maybe the screaming headlines will finally begin to subside a bit. From the Daily Beast…
Chicago logged 506 murders in 2012. That’s more than the nation’s two largest cities (New York and Los Angeles), and the number invited media attention that made people think that maybe Chicago, far from being a picturesque city for yuppies and tourists, was actually a good place to go only if you were looking to get shot.
With just three weeks until we close out the year, the homicide ticker is stuck on 401. That’s still almost a hundred more than New York, a city with over three times Chicago’s population, has had to date but it’s also the largest year-over-year drop in a decade, police department data show.
More…
Homicides are increasingly clustered in a handful of police districts today compared with 20 years ago.
The divide is so stark that if the city were divided into three sections—the safest, the average and the most dangerous—Hertz writes, “In the early ’90s, the most dangerous third of the city had about six times as many murders as the safest third.”
“By the late 2000s,” he adds, “the most dangerous part of the city had nearly fifteen times more homicides than the safest third.”
Discuss.
17 Comments
|
* Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s lawyer’s are arguing their appeal of his conviction today. Main dot points from the AP…
- Blagojevich had engaged in legal, run-of-the-mill “political horse-trading” as he sought a Cabinet seat, an ambassadorship or some other high-paying job for himself in exchange for appointing someone to the U.S. Senate seat Barack Obama vacated to become president.
- Trial Judge James Zagel wrongly added years to Blagojevich’s sentence as a result of $1.5 million in campaign contributions that supporters of then-U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. allegedly offered if Blagojevich named Jackson to Obama’s seat. The appeal says there’s no proof such an offer was “accepted, negotiated or even entertained by Blagojevich.”
- Zagel allowed one juror - referred to only as Juror No. 174 - to remain on the panel during Blagojevich’s second, decisive trial, even after he said about Blagojevich during jury selection that, “I just figured him, possibly, to be guilty.”
- Zagel erred by not allowing Blagojevich to argue at his trial that, whether or not he broke the law, he acted in good faith and always thought his actions were legal.
* Sun-Times has rebuttal…
But in their filing, prosecutors balked at the notion that what Blagojevich did was commonplace, writing that, “A public official who sells his office engages in crime, not politics.”
They also addressed the allegedly biased juror. A partially formed opinion, they noted, isn’t in itself grounds for booting someone from a jury, provided that would-be jurors assure a judge they will decide a verdict based only on evidence at trial, as the juror in question did.
* Tribune…
The Chicago-based 7th Circuit is also known as one of the stingiest in the nation when it comes to reversing cases. According to statistics from 2011 and 2012, the court reversed only about 12 percent of criminal cases that it decided. Some legal experts who spoke to the Tribune about the ex-governor’s chances also questioned whether painting Zagel as biased could hurt more than help, since he’s well-regarded by appellate judges as smart and experienced.
Blagojevich might have better prospects of reducing his sentence. The 14-year prison term handed down by Zagel was the second-longest ever delivered in federal court in Chicago for a political corruption case and more than double the time given to Blagojevich’s predecessor, George Ryan, who completed his 6 1/2-year prison sentence earlier this year.
* From a WUIS interview of House Speaker Michael Madigan…
VINICKY: “It’s the five year anniversary of Blagojevich’s arrest coming up … any reaction, any …
MADIGAN: “Yeah, we should … celebrate.”
*** UPDATE *** The trade for the US Senate seat, in my mind, has always been the weakest link. Two appellate justices appeared to express at least some agreement today…
During one exchange, Easterbrook asked if there was “any criminal conviction in U.S. history” other than Blagojevich’s in which a politician was convicted for trying to trade one job for another.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Bonamici had to admit there wasn’t one, as far as she knew.
Easterbrook then described how in the run up to the 1952 presidential election, California Gov. Earl Warren offered to “deliver California” for Dwight Eisenhower in return for a seat on the Supreme Court — a deal that Eisenhower honored when he was elected.
When Easterbrook asked if Eisenhower and Warren should therefore have been jailed, Bonamici said they should not have been, calling Blagojevich’s case “totally different.”
Easterbrook countered that it would be an “act of shysterism to say that was okay and that [what Blagojevich did] was not.”
And Rovner asked whether Blaojevich’s actions were not part of the “time-honored way in which politicians do business.”
34 Comments
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
   
|
Hosted by MCS
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax
Advertise Here
Mobile Version
Contact Rich Miller
|
