* Sun-Times…
The AFL-CIO, which has nearly 900,000 members in Illinois, filed a complaint with the Office of the Executive Inspector General, alleging that Rauner is violating the state’s procurement code because of Rauner’s former chairmanship of GTCR. GTCR has won millions of dollars in Illinois pension business, through the Teachers Retirement System.
According to the complaint, Rauner must wait two years before donating money to any candidate — even himself — under the procurement code.
Rauner resigned from GTCR on Oct. 19, 2012. Under the AFL-CIO’s way of thinking, Rauner would have to wait until Oct. 19 2014 (right before the general election) before he could donate to his own campaign.
“We filed a complaint and we feel very strongly it is a significant conflict of interest,” Illinois AFL-CIO President Mike Carrigan told the Sun-Times. “We strongly feel is a violation of the Illinois procurement code.”
* Tribune…
Rauner spokesman Mike Schrimpf contended the unions were “allies” of Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn and were acting “beyond the point of desperation.”
“The complaint fails on its face and is conceptually ridiculous. Bruce first contributed to his exploratory committee nearly a year ago, and the government union bosses finally filing this now only confirms that they know Bruce will defeat Quinn and shake up the status quo in Springfield,” Schrimpf said in a statement.
Officials from the Office of Executive Inspector General said they could not comment on the complaint, which the AFL-CIO filed late last week. An official in the inspector general’s office was not familiar with any previous complaints over alleged violations of prohibited donations by state contractors dealing with political candidates.
* The complaint can be found by clicking here.
* And here’s the actual statute referenced in the complaint…
Any business entity whose contracts with State agencies, in the aggregate, annually total more than $50,000, and any affiliated entities or affiliated persons of such business entity, are prohibited from making any contributions to any political committees established to promote the candidacy of (i) the officeholder responsible for awarding the contracts or (ii) any other declared candidate for that office.
This prohibition shall be effective for the duration of the term of office of the incumbent officeholder awarding the contracts or for a period of 2 years following the expiration or termination of the contracts, whichever is longer.
This is a fascinating case because I think the statute could be seen at least a couple of different ways. Still, I gotta wonder whether prohibiting somebody from spending cash on his own campaign would be constitutional.
My question, which hasn’t yet been answered, is: “Why the heck did the unions wait until Rauner had spent $5 million to file this thing?”
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:41 am:
It might well be fascinating, but at the same time something far more fascinating would be prohibiting someone from using their own resources for their own campaign. When you shop for a judge to accept that premise, the legal store might be fresh out of stock. Some very bright young legal assistant probably found this strategic approach. It would take a very fresh set of eyes and a nimble mind to be this enterprising. It’s ingenious really, but I would believe ultimately unconstitutional in a clash of rights.
- Reality Check - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:42 am:
The statute seems clear. Either it means what it says or it doesn’t. Under the clear wording of the law it sure looks like Rauner’s cash is prohibited.
Based just on this section of the law, you’d have to go farther than the Sun-Times, which says “Rauner would have to wait until Oct. 19, 2014″ to donate. That doesn’t seem right. That’s two years from when he resigned from GTCR, but the law says “the duration of the term of office of the incumbent” (til Jan 2015) or “2 years following the expiration of the contracts, whichever is longer.” The contracts are still in place, so the 2-year clock would not seem to have started yet.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:43 am:
–Still, I gotta wonder whether prohibiting somebody from spending cash on his own campaign would be constitutional.–
Highly doubtful. I think this is more of a publicity stunt, a free way to focus on Rauner’s money and pay-to-play biz.
As to why they waited, someone must have had a brainstorm and thought it was worth a shot for the p.r.
Last I checked, the governor doesn’t directly sign off on TRS business, anyway.
- Norseman - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:43 am:
A lightbulb must’ve clicked on in somebody’s mind. Unfortunately, by the time of this realization the horse already got out of the barn.
- Shark Sandwich - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:43 am:
They don’t have to win, just show he is not the ‘outsider’ he claims he is.
- OneMan - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:43 am:
Some of the federal case law on self funders kind of implies that self funders are less subject influence so less in need of regulation.
Reguardless as I read state law (so take a huge grain of salt) he can just use the loan option.
Go to a bank and deposit 100 million or whatever and say “can my campaign get a loan for 8 months?”
Don’t think anyone would turn him away.
- too obvious - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:44 am:
I’m no fan of public employee unions, but they have a good point here.
And gullible Republican can fawn over Rauner’s fluffy ads all they want. But the fact is Rauner made a fortune off the backs of union members. Where do people think those humongous management fees Rauner and GTCR reap came from? They come from union member contributions into the system.
So when Rauner insults and attacks the very unions that made him rich, I don’t blame those unions for pushing back.
- MyTwoCents - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:44 am:
A couple of things. First, iirc there have been some instances of this provision being enforced. I’ve seen the notices from the Chief Procurement Officer (who I believe was responsible for investigating/enforcing it) published in the Illinois Register, maybe late last year sometime. I believe they dealt with donations from the 2010 campaign. Secondly this should certainly keep all of Rauner’s old partners from donating to his campaign.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:44 am:
===My question, which hasn’t yet been answered, is: “Why the heck did the unions wait until Rauner had spent $5 million to file this thing?”===
Many thought at the beginning that “Bruce Rauner” would be McKenna or Gidwitz. When “Bruce Rauner” proved to be something far different than McKenna and Gidwitz, and the flow of hundreds of thousands from all corners of the ILGOP and the national network of the “1%”, it was better to play this hand “long”, and if need be, make this a General Election “narrative”, not assist in the GOP primary demise.
For the General;
You have someone who wants/ed to lower the minimum wage, run the state like a business, attack Unions, disregarding seniors, and now… a man, a hypocrite, allegedly illegally using monies made off Union pensions for fame, glory, and the destruction of working families in Illinois.
Timing is quite perfect for that Narrative, and if the ruling is even partial, they will be cooking with gas.
- Bill White - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:45 am:
=== Still, I gotta wonder whether prohibiting somebody from spending cash on his own campaign would be constitutional. ===
Actually, the questions is this:
“Should people who have been awarded state contracts be permitted to make large campaign donations to the people who have the power to award those contracts?”
- Bill White - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:46 am:
Why wait until now?
“Steady, boys. Steady. Hold fire until you see the whites of their eyes.”
Also too, why did that guy in Rutherford’s office wait years before filing his claim?
- Excessively Rabid - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:49 am:
Too bad it doesn’t say you’re prohibited from running for the office that awarded you the contract….
- Wensicia - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:49 am:
I don’t believe the unions felt Rauner would be relevant until a few weeks ago. The light bulb realization probably happened recently.
It’s good for publicity, but I doubt they can prevail.
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:50 am:
A better question is why none of his opponents caught or filed this.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:51 am:
===I don’t believe the unions felt Rauner would be relevant until a few weeks ago===
LOL
They’ve been plotting their TV ad blitz for months.
- Reality Check - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:51 am:
Word: Last I checked, the governor doesn’t directly sign off on TRS business
The governor appoints six members of the TRS board as well as the state superintendent of education. By statute the superintendent is president of the TRS board. Those seven votes constitute a controlling majority of the 13-member board.
- Bored Chairman - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:52 am:
This law doesn’t apply to self-founders. But organized labor just gave the Rauner campaign a great roadmap for going after their campaign contributions. The unions who have contracts with the State of Illinois for training and apprenticeship programs will be barred from contributing to Quinn or Dillard. And those campaigns will have to give up their ill-gotten gains. Thanks for the idea, Carrigan!
- Bored Chairman - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:54 am:
Self-funders. Darn that auto-correct.
- OneMan - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:55 am:
Not a bad move on the union’s part IMHO. Don’t see how it stands up to any sort of constitutional test (spending money on yourself after all) but it ties up some lawyers for a while.
- chad - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:56 am:
Another angle for this story is the potential debarment of Rauner companies from doing further business with the state is a violation is found by the purchasing officer.
- Walker - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 9:59 am:
===This law doesn’t apply to self-funders===
Your citation or source for that claim?
- The Captain - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:00 am:
If I remember correctly the remedy would be against GTCR, not necessarily the campaign. I thought the outcome was that GTCR could have their contract voided and/or be suspended from further state business. Maybe I’m remembering it wrong though.
Still though, quite entertaining.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:02 am:
Bruce first contributed to his exploratory committee nearly a year ago, and the government union bosses finally filing this now only confirms that they know Bruce will defeat Quinn and shake up the status quo in Springfield,” Schrimpf said in a statement.
++++++++++
Is there a statute of limitations Schrimpf? Thin gruel as an explanation…
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:03 am:
It’s being portrayed somehow that the money he earned investing for the unions were a contribution and not legitimately owed fees for successful work. Did the unions do well as a result of his skill? Did they lose money? Did he outperform others or perform at a lesser level than others investing on their behalf? Or was he the only person awarded (funny word in this context) a contract to invest on their behalf? He’s rich. So are most executives in private or public service. We’ve seen where our middle class execs have taken us. Is being wealthy a prohibitive sin in public service? If so, let’s banish the Kennedy’s, Bushs’, Kerrys, Obamas, Clintons, Reagans,and the rest of the evil, rich cabal. When you whack the rich, remember that by and large you’re whacking the intelligent most the time too. Big jobs require big people with big ability. You’ll get some big egos and big arrogance a lot of the time too. Funny, you get big egos and big arrogance no matter what. It appears to me Rauner has earned his wealth. No union gave it to him and they appeared to be very satisfied with his performance.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:04 am:
Why was Rauner forced to file amended D-2 when he failed to follow campaign finance rules and hid his staff behind a payroll company?
This goes straight to Rauner’s unethical behavior that we’ve remarked on so many times…
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:05 am:
Cincinnati, this coming from a guy supporting a guy who never asks where the money comes from and doesn’t consider it important to find out the difference between a loan and a gift. Glass house meet boulder.
- Veritas - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:06 am:
Anyone else notice that Rauner is AWOL?? All statements recently come from his spokesman & he and his “sidekick” both skipped recent debates.
- ZC - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:06 am:
This kind of reminds me of the question that students always ask in campaign finance classes, “Why can’t the CEO of a corporation arrange himself a $50 million bonus … And -then- use that 50M to run for office? That wouldn’t be corporate funding of the campaign…” My only-a-hunch here is the statute literally applies to money GTCR has contributed to Rauner for gub, not any millions Rauner has earned from GTCR and that are now in his personal bank account. He doesn’t sound to me like a “business entity” (not legally, anyways).
- Walter Mitty - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:07 am:
So his wife starts writing the checks…. I sort of agree with Bored Chairman in a sense… So a guy takes the money he makes and spends it on his campaign… Not even out of the park as we learned the other day… People loose their minds. Public unions can take public money and back candiates for their own influence and it’s applauded. Me thinks that his point resonates because this simple boil down is what he has done. His competitors haven’t. Because they can’t. There’s also more outrage by this than what the Gov clearly has got caught doing with public money. To be clear, I am for people wasting their own money, not ours.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:08 am:
===Cincinnati, this coming from a guy supporting a guy who never asks where the money comes from and doesn’t consider it important to find out the difference between a loan and a gift. Glass house meet boulder.===
So, - A Guy… -, hmm, glass house and boulder? So you admit the hypocrite that is Bruce Rauner might be wrong?
I mean, glass houses and boulders…
- MrJM - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:09 am:
A statute that prohibits a citizen from spending his own money to promote his own political message?
There’s no way that interpretation passes constitutional muster.
– MrJM
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:10 am:
- Cincinnatus -,
Get the GOTV rolling, bud, with the teachers and get your Election Day set. You need a strong 3 weeks. Your Crew and Brady are the only hope.
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:12 am:
Well, this won’t work, but I give them credit for being creative.
That being stated, if the headlines generated cause even a few more voters to pay attention, then all the better.
- Reader - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:13 am:
Seems strange that businesses have such a prohibition, but unions do not. The principle behind the law applies to both.
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:14 am:
No Willie, you’re the only hope. Thanks for being you.
====So, - A Guy… -, hmm, glass house and boulder? So you admit the hypocrite that is Bruce Rauner might be wrong?I mean, glass houses and boulders…
===
As usual, you’re way ahead of me. I’m just not mentally equipped to figure out what this means.
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:17 am:
A Guy
“It’s being portrayed somehow that the money he earned investing for the unions were a contribution and not legitimately owed fees for successful work. Did the unions do well as a result of his skill? Did they lose money? Did he outperform others or perform at a lesser level than others investing on their behalf? Or was he the only person awarded (funny word in this context) a contract to invest on their behalf? He’s rich. So are most executives in private or public service. We’ve seen where our middle class execs have taken us. Is being wealthy a prohibitive sin in public service? If so, let’s banish the Kennedy’s, Bushs’, Kerrys, Obamas, Clintons, Reagans,and the rest of the evil, rich cabal. When you whack the rich, remember that by and large you’re whacking the intelligent most the time too. Big jobs require big people with big ability. You’ll get some big egos and big arrogance a lot of the time too. Funny, you get big egos and big arrogance no matter what. It appears to me Rauner has earned his wealth. No union gave it to him and they appeared to be very satisfied with his performance.”
Does part of Rauner’s wanting to shake up Springfield only apply to others ? There are ethics laws in Illinois. We have them for a reason. If the law says you have to wait to contribute for a specific time period, then it means just that. It does not say he can’t run for office. It says he can’t contribute. I personally don’t see a constitutional issue with this. Rauner made a whole lot of money off the state pensions. He needs to live by the rules.
The Rauberbots are out again.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:18 am:
–We’ve seen where our middle class execs have taken us–
LOL, I don’t think your boy is flashing that $18 watch or wearing the Carharrt to make the plutocracy argument.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:19 am:
“Raunerbot. Activate!”
===It’s being portrayed somehow that the money he earned investing for the unions were a contribution and not legitimately owed fees for successful work. Did the unions do well as a result of his skill? Did they lose money? Did he outperform others or perform at a lesser level than others investing on their behalf?===
Translation: “So what about honesty or integrity, everybody made money, k? I mean, it’s about the money, and the integrity or honesty of it after is inconsequential!”
===He’s rich. So are most executives in private or public service. We’ve seen where our middle class execs have taken us. Is being wealthy a prohibitive sin in public service? If so, let’s banish the Kennedy’s, Bushs’, Kerrys, Obamas, Clintons, Reagans,and the rest of the evil, rich cabal===
Translation: “Being rich is not a ‘crime’, so you should just have your envy of the rich, just ignore how they became rich if it goes against the narrative ”
=== When you whack the rich, remember that by and large you’re whacking the intelligent most the time too. Big jobs require big people with big ability. You’ll get some big egos and big arrogance a lot of the time too.===
Translation: “The golden rule” is those with the gold make the rules. Like it or lump it, Dopes!”
=== It appears to me Rauner has earned his wealth. No union gave it to him and they appeared to be very satisfied with his performance.===
Translation: Ignore the fact Rauner grew up very wealthy, prep schools, Dad a high level executive and never had a ‘want’, just strap on the $18 watch and the prestine Carhartt, and like a Raunerite lemming, jump off the cliff and feel the bliss!”
Better.
- Reality Check - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:21 am:
Walter Mitty: So his wife starts writing the checks
Um, no:
“Affiliated person” means (i) any person with any ownership interest or distributive share of the bidding or contracting business entity in excess of 7.5%, (ii) executive employees of the bidding or contracting business entity, and (iii) the spouse of any such persons.
Next excuse?
- Southwest Cook - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:21 am:
I think the prohibition is only for the business entity and “affiliated persons of such business entity”. Since Rauner is no longer affiliated with GTCR, the prohibition doesn’t apply to him. It says nothing about former affilates. GTCR and persons currently affialiated with them cannot donate to any gubernatorial campaigns. If their contract was terminated today, they couldn’t donate for 2 years from now.
But if the unions win this case, what about Rauner’s wife? Is she considered affiliated with GTCR, or can she donate freely to his campaign?
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:22 am:
Reader
“Seems strange that businesses have such a prohibition, but unions do not. The principle behind the law applies to both.”
Please tell me exactly what money the unions are making off the pensions. The argument is silly.
- When in Rome - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:23 am:
Bored Chairman is correct that the unions also have contracts with state, so if this prohibits Rauner, it also prohibits AFSCME from donating.
- ZC - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:25 am:
Good points by Reality Check and Southwest Cook alike. Rauner might have been affiliated… But he’s not anymore.
- Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:25 am:
Wow - title of post has both “unions” and “Rauner” and you get 40 posts in 40 minutes.
Perhaps this is what will get a good discussion going on gambling expansion, if labor and Rauner took a side on it.
- Walter Mitty - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:27 am:
Reality Check… Good call… I retract that part! My point because my horse is on life support, is that public money spent for campaigns good. Personal stimulus plan for Illinois bad. I suppose I am one of the many that are so frustrated and let down by so many… I feel like I have no place to turn… Willie implied he would run… I just feel burned. Thanks for the correction…He could hire Willie World Con$ulting…. Flow funds through him.. With the standard 80% fees charged… Turnabout is fairplay…
- Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:27 am:
To the post, agree, too little, too late. Often the simplest explanation is right - maybe they didn’t think of the idea until recently.
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:28 am:
===Please tell me exactly what money the unions are making off the pensions. The argument is silly.===
AFSME Steward, I forgot, the bosses work for free. Raunerbot Alert, there I saving you the trouble.
Jeesh.
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:29 am:
OW, Thanks for your interpretation. If you’re thinking about doing the same for the UN, we might want to spend a little more on defense here.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:32 am:
Aw, too easy! My pleasure.
I saw “The Interpreter” with Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn, so I will take a pass on the latter. The Raunerbot playbook is just too easy…
- Reality Check - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:32 am:
Southwest Cook: Since Rauner is no longer affiliated with GTCR, the prohibition doesn’t apply to him.
Although Rauner retired as chairman, as the complaint states, he retains a partnership interest in GTCR itself and in its two funds currently doing business with TRS.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:35 am:
too obvious @ 9:44 am,
Thanks for the excellent post. Rauner may be a lot of different things, but he’s not an outsider.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:35 am:
- Walter Mitty -,
Think General Election, - Norseman - has the campaign geared towards November. “Don’t cry for me, - Walter Mitty -, remember I never left you…”
- OneMan - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:35 am:
Ok, the law has a specific exemption for organizations…
Anyway Buckley V Kelso covered self funders in part
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/case.html
But again, if you look at the law loans from banks or state banks are exempt. So if they said he could give to himself, I don’t see why his campaign couldn’t get huge loans. It isn’t like he isn’t going to be good for it.
- thechampaignlife - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:52 am:
===Why the heck did the unions wait until Rauner had spent $5 million to file this thing?===
I agree that it’s questionable constitutionally to deny him the right to support his own campaign but waiting until he’d spent all this money might be part of a plan to force him to have to withdraw $5M after he’s already spent it, forcing his donors to essentially be contributing to pay off old bills instead of buy new ads.
Or, more likely, the unions are just now realizing how far behind they are and are scrambling to stop momentum.
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:53 am:
The supreme court has clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly said that political contributions are speech and restrictions of this nature are unconstitutional. Even if it was a close call before, in the Citizen’s United era, this is simply a wishful thinking exercise.
- JDeb - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:55 am:
It does seem ironic that the AFL-CIO is trying to stop a guy from contributing to his own campaign using a technicality (not like he’s using his money to influence himself), yet the unions can contribute hundreds of thousands to the elected officials with whom they collectively bargain.
If a paving contractor or a bank or a office supply vendor can’t contribute to an elected official (or candidate) with whom they have a contract b/c it could give them favorable treatment, why doesn’t that apply to unions who bargain over hundreds of millions in state $$$ and ongoing benefit obligations.
- Linebacker II - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:55 am:
Unions elites and the Springfield political lifer class are scared. We the People, the ‘regular joe’s’ that go to work everyday and have a family budget and kids in school and bills to pay ARE SICK AND TIRED of the creatures that inhabit Springfield - and the sycophants that cluster around them. WE will vote for Rauner because he is the ONLY candidate that can end the mess in Sprinfield PERIOD.
- Samurai - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:57 am:
Strict interpretation of the Act applies to Rauner. Probably never considered a Bruce Rauner candidate when this was passed.
b) Any business entity whose contracts with State agencies, in the aggregate, annually total more than $50,000, (GTCR) and any … affiliated persons (Bruce Rauner) of such business entity, are prohibited from making any contributions to any political committees established to promote the candidacy of (i) the officeholder responsible for awarding the contracts or (ii) any other declared candidate for that office.(Bruce Rauner).
- Abe - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:59 am:
It is clearly unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Rauner. He can spend his own money for his own candidacy regardless of what even the Insp General concludes. It is an infringement on his 1st Amendment rights.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:59 am:
===…- and the sycophants that cluster around them. WE will vote for Rauner because he is the ONLY candidate that can end the mess in Sprinfield PERIOD.===
So you mean Bruce Rauner too, I am guessing. I mean, even Raunerbots can see the tens if thousands donated to Rich Daley, Rahm Emanuel, and Ed Rendell, and the Pennsylvania pension work and the Illinois pension work too. Right? lol
- Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:00 am:
==political contributions are speech and restrictions of this nature are unconstitutional==
So the state’s ethics laws regarding this are unconstitutional? I don’t think so.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:01 am:
==We the People, the ‘regular joe’s’ that go to work everyday and have a family budget and kids in school and bills to pay==
I think that covers most people. Dope.
- ZC - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:02 am:
Chicago Cynic, I’ve been convinced I need to do more research into this statute - reality check has convinced me it’s more complex than I first realized - but you should research Citizens united more.
Citizens united, in no way, has said that -contributions- are pure speech and cannot be regulated. If that were true there would be campaign contribution caps, but there still are. CU deals with nominally “uncoordinated” spending, which by definition Rauner’s own campaign committee has nothing to do with; Rauner can’t be unaffiliated with his own wallet.
Taking the plain meaning of your post on face value … You’re just wrong.
- throwing stones - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:04 am:
OK, simple solution for Rauner, follow the high road as Quinn did and donate these questionable funds to not for profit organizations as well as all money made from gtcr, then donate to the campaign as seen fit, afterall isnt the governer running for the sake of the people of illinois? Problem solved.
- Siriusly - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:06 am:
Yeah someone should have pulled this trigger six months ago. But the horse is out of the barn. That money is spent and his name and brand ID are now much higher. Should have tried to stop him in the fall when it mattered.
- Samurai - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:12 am:
===The supreme court has clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly said that political contributions are speech and restrictions of this nature are unconstitutional==
Even the 1st amendment right to free speech can be regulated in the least restrictive manner to address other legitimate concerns.
Not saying that Bruce Raauner cannot, or should not, be able to blow his entire wad to be Governor
- Reality Check - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:13 am:
I’d like to know if there are other interests with TRS or SERS contracts whose “affiliated persons” and/or spouses have made apparently illegal contributions.
- MrJM - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:16 am:
Ironically, it does not include Bruce Rauner.
– MrJM
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:22 am:
The problem with this lawsuit is that the prohibition falls under the procurement code. The Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System is not under the procurement code. There is no applicability here.
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:34 am:
A Guy
“===Please tell me exactly what money the unions are making off the pensions. The argument is silly.===
AFSME Steward, I forgot, the bosses work for free. Raunerbot Alert, there I saving you the trouble.
Jeesh.”
Again, please answer the question. What money does the union make off pensions? Union leaders are paid for by union members. They do not make money from pensions. Once again, you’re argyument is silly & makes no sense at all.
- Casual Observer - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:35 am:
I’m guessing the OEIG will release the results of their findings by mid-March…..2015.
- olddog - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:35 am:
Do any teachers or state employees “go to work everyday and have a family budget and kids in school and bills to pay?” Why declare class warfare against them?
- Reality Check - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:44 am:
And what, you may ask, is the penalty?
(e) Any political committee that has received a contribution in violation of subsection (b) or (c) shall pay an amount equal to the value of the contribution to the State, no more than 30 days after notice of the violation concerning the contribution appears in the Illinois Register. Payments received by the State pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited into the general revenue fund.
Keep at it, Bruce, and the state’s budget problems will be solved.
- Bill White - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:48 am:
=== Payments received by the State pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited into the general revenue fund. ===
This would seem to answer Rich Miller’s question: “Why did they wait to file this?”
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:54 am:
Linebacker II
“Unions elites and the Springfield political lifer class are scared. We the People, the ‘regular joe’s’ that go to work everyday and have a family budget and kids in school and bills to pay ARE SICK AND TIRED of the creatures that inhabit Springfield - and the sycophants that cluster around them. WE will vote for Rauner because he is the ONLY candidate that can end the mess in Sprinfield PERIOD.”
I am a regular Joe, who goes to work everyday & has all of the responsibilities you mention. The rest of us regular Joes are still waiting to hear Rauner’s plan on exactly how he’s going to solve the problems Illinois faces. All of his supporters want to blame the unions and union workers. Let’s look at the facts. Not all government employees are union. If all state employees were layed off today and they no longer were being paid, the state would still be billions of dollars in debt. The pension shortages have nothing to do with the unions. The pensions are funded at approximately the same level as they were before there were ever unions.
So I’ll challenge you here. Maybe I missed something here. Please tell me what the Rauner plan is to address these issues. I know he wants to shake up Springfield (whatever that means), hates union bosses (who are not responsible for the pension issue & do not represent merit compensation employees) & supports term limits. But he has not taken a stand on a single issue of any importance. He has offered no plan of any sort. His TV ads are nothing more than focus group tested buzz words. In addition to being a total phoney, he has offered no solutions of any sort. He is not an outsider & he is one of the “creatures that inhabit Springfield” that you describe. He is part of the “Springfield lifer class”. I challenge you to show me I’m wrong.
- Bill White - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:56 am:
= IF = the union argument is sustained, it would seem that Bruce Rauner would also be blocked from self-funding the $5 million owed to the IL general revenue fund.
That money would have to come from elsewhere.
- Chi - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 12:02 pm:
I see no difference in the 1st Amendment argument based on he’s funding his candidacy or another’s candidacy. There’s a 1st Amendment argument against both prohibitions, but I don’t see how one is different than the other.
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 12:22 pm:
===Again, please answer the question. What money does the union make off pensions? Union leaders are paid for by union members. They do not make money from pensions. Once again, you’re argument is silly & makes no sense at all.====
Afscme- Union leaders are paid by the union. How’s the union get paid to pay the Union Leaders? How do they choose who invests their money? How do they decide if the person investing is doing a good job or not? Does the union ever lose money? Whose money is it they’re losing if they do? As long as we’re talking about the flow of money, let’s be comprehensive. I know you’ve got a position to advocate here. I respect it. It’s important to be fair in criticism, that’s all. Rauner didn’t get fat on union money. He earned a fee while earning them a good return. I haven’t heard anyone complain about how well he did his job.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 12:26 pm:
===Rauner didn’t get fat on union money.===
How you think you are NOT a Raunerbot, especially after that Dopey statement is amazing.
Wow!
- PublicServant - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 12:37 pm:
I get it. Rauner’s money is his, and Union money is taxpayer money. Got it.
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 12:38 pm:
A Guy
“Afscme- Union leaders are paid by the union. How’s the union get paid to pay the Union Leaders? How do they choose who invests their money? How do they decide if the person investing is doing a good job or not? Does the union ever lose money? Whose money is it they’re losing if they do? As long as we’re talking about the flow of money, let’s be comprehensive. I know you’ve got a position to advocate here. I respect it. It’s important to be fair in criticism, that’s all. Rauner didn’t get fat on union money. He earned a fee while earning them a good return. I haven’t heard anyone complain about how well he did his job.”
This has to be one of the dopiest comments I’ve ever seen. Unions don’t invest money. They don’t make a profit. Unions are paid by union members to represent union members. A lot of union leaders, including me, are volunteer and other than an occasional free lunch are not compensated. Just so you know, I am a Republican. I am not supporting Rauner because he is a total phoney, not because claims to be a conservative.
If you don’t want be be considered a Raunerbot, then post intelligent support for him. Perhaps you have the information I’ve been asking for all morning. What are his plans ? What are his solutions ? His commercials appeal the emotions of everyone who is fed up with the system. But he is the system. He’s more of an insider than Quinn. His track record is to use whatever means he can to benefit himself. Prove me wrong. Please.
- Mason born - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 12:46 pm:
Heard this on the radio this morning i was curious to see what the opinions would be.
I can’t see how his would stop Rauner. Even if they forced him to stop i can’t see how his network of friends would not keep him afloat knowing Bruce could write a check to settle up.
Ironically i think some of the Union fire is actually helping him. Then again it may be the shrill Raunerbots.
- OneMan - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 12:52 pm:
Rauner ‘got fat’ on a lot of different things, not just Union money.
Understandably the unions are not a fan of Bruce, so therefore it is logical that they would do what they can to prevent him from winning. That would include making this legal argument, it may (and likely will not IMHO) work, but it is worth a shot.
Just like if someone came up with a ‘why’ Union money couldn’t be spent in an election you would expect Bruce to bring it up.
Unions exist to protect the interests of their members, otherwise why have a union…. Keeping wages and benefits increasing is fundamentally in the interests of those who receive them (the union members), again if a union didn’t push for that why have a union? Public employee unions don’t exist to look out for my interests nor my kids (since we are not members) we have mutual interests (for example that we pay teachers X) but at the end of the day if it comes down to a teachers raise or a program my kid participates in I would fully expect then union to argue for the raise, not the program.
That being said, some of the criticism tossed at Bruce is kind of stretch. The biggest is ‘he doesn’t have a plan’, unless I have missed something over the last 20+ years, most candidates when they are candidates really don’t have a plan, they have ideas, soundbites, etc but they generally don’t have detailed plans. Why? Well because I would argue detailed plans don’t help anyone win a primary (or a general election for that matter). So not to sound cynical but his goal at this point is to win a primary his next goal is to win an election. Because if you can’t do that all the plans in the world will do you no good.
Would Rod have beaten Paul Vallas if people knew what is plan was (assuming he had one)? Heck no.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 12:59 pm:
===Rauner ‘got fat’ on a lot of different things, not just Union money.===
With much respect, - OneMan -, when “Bruce Rauner” runs against, say the Boston Red Sox, then brushing aside the statement might have some more weight.
Bruce Rauner made millions of Pensions, Union Pensions, and uses real money to leverage himself to make that money in Illinois and Pennsylvania. There was a ROI, otherwise, why do it? Then to have ” Bruce Rauner” rail on insiders, like, you guessed it, Bruce Rauner, it is pathetic.
Much respect, - OneMan -.
- YO - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 1:00 pm:
Really discouraging and actually frightening how anyone could support someone like Rauner. He is arrogant, evasive on issues and so condescending to just about everybody. How someone who has amassed the wealth he has (however it happened) can call retiree earning 30-40K pensions greedy sounds mentally ill…..delusional in fact. And people who would agree with that?
- phocion - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 1:00 pm:
==So the state’s ethics laws regarding this are unconstitutional? I don’t think so.==
It hasn’t been challenged. And I suspect if it were, it would be found unconstitutional on a variety of grounds, including 1st Amendment free speech and equal protection.
- veritas - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 1:02 pm:
That Rauner chose to begin this war with unions calls to question his knowledge of the state as well as his math skills. To wit: Many of the public employee union members are Republicans - either from Thompson, Edgar administrations or teachers. Ergo: He is attacking his base, as well. His math skills are questioned because the GOP is in the minority to begin with. For any GOP victory we need help from moderate Dems. and Independents. If we don’t get crossover votes - we don’t win. Rauner is, incredibly, saying that Dems. and disenchanted union members (they booed Quinn, remember) shouldn’t vote in the GOP primary!! If they do - we might elect someone who is acceptable to the majority in the general election!! Wow - that would be revolutionary.
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 1:39 pm:
===This has to be one of the dopiest comments I’ve ever seen. Unions don’t invest money.===
Afscme Steward, this is your first 2 sentences. Let’s focus on the second one please. You want another crack at this one?
Between you and OW, I’ve endured being called dope or dopey on numerous occasions. Now you’ve stated Unions don’t invest money. C’mon man. What’s next; water isn’t wet? Silly, dopey, Raunerbot, Raunerite, Bite me…. I’ve heard them all by now. I like participating here, but there’s a narrative on some of this stuff that has taken on such a life of its own that it becomes literally inane. Willie has no objectivity left on a couple of topics. This one hits you (afscme) close to home, so I get it. I’m for smart people who are problem solvers. My own opinion is that Rauner fits that bill better than Dan, Bill, Kirk, Pat and Tio (sounds like the Jackson 5) We disagree. I love a spirited debate, but deplore a goofy one. Tried to hold up my end on this one.
- ZC - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 1:39 pm:
Reality Check, you seem to be on top of this, so I’m curious what you make of Anonymous 11:22’s comment:
>> The problem with this lawsuit is that the prohibition falls under the procurement code. The Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System is not under the procurement code. There is no applicability here.
- Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 1:46 pm:
Just wondering if this is a Hail Mary pass prompted by the UAW loss at the TN VW plant. I suspect that IL AFL-CIO has some mighty sharp lawyers on the payroll, and this tactic was in the toolbox for a long time and left there because it was a reach. But the VW loss sent enough panic through organized labor that a decision was made to throw whatever was available at clearly anti-union targets.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 1:50 pm:
=== Willie has no objectivity left on a couple of topics===
Just because you can’t defend you position does not nSke my lacking objectivity, lol. Dude, get some game defending instead of the glib, then you get props, otherwise your talking points, which I point out, are Raunerbot lemming points, based on wishing facts, not actual facts.
Blaming me that you can’t make logical points beyond Rauberbot points is … well, what it is.
=== I love a spirited debate, but deplore a goofy one. Tried to hold up my end on this one.===
The only thing making this debate goofy, is the Raunerbot talking points. Holding up your end if the bargain means debating, factually, beyond the talking points, and then if you feel we are wrong, show us our errors.
Being the. “Victim” is a Rauberbot special. Play less of a victim, and you won’t worry about perceived lemming rebuttals.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 1:58 pm:
===“Why the heck did the unions wait until Rauner had spent $5 million to file this thing?”===
My guess is, like Elliot Ness going after Al Capone on tax evasion instead of racketerring and murder, the unions didn’t think of it sooner and didn’t think it would be enough. It’s like they’re trying to use a technicality against him instead of the really juicy stuff they think will make him politically radioactive.
And it was probably a junior lawyer who first suggested it to the union leadership and nobody took it seriously enough to look into it further. Happens all the time.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 2:10 pm:
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 10:10 am:
- Cincinnatus -,
Get the GOTV rolling, bud, with the teachers and get your Election Day set. You need a strong 3 weeks. Your Crew and Brady are the only hope.
++++++++++
High gear, about ready to shift to overdrive…
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 2:16 pm:
- Cincinnatus -,
Tell Hodas to make sure Kirk takes it to Rauner tonight. Chicago TV is a white hot spotlight for “Bruce Rauner” … education.
- Reality Check - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 2:18 pm:
@ZC, I found that comment interesting as well. I am not an attorney, however, the complaint states “TRS is a state agency within the meaning of the Illinois Procurement Code Section proscribing certain political contributions” and “it is a state agency with the meaning of the Ethics Act.”
- DuPage Rep - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 2:28 pm:
To AFSCME Steward
===Again, please answer the question. What money does the union make off pensions? Union leaders are paid for by union members. They do not make money from pensions. Once again, you’re argument is silly & makes no sense at all.===
Did you ever hear of Tom Villanova and the other “Union bosses”? How were they able to get the taxpayers to pay 80% of there Union salary by way of a Union leave? Paid for by Union money and what they buy from politicians like Dillard.
- DuPage Rep - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 2:30 pm:
I forgot to add that Tom Villanova draws a government pension based on 80% of the highest Union salary which was over 200K.
- DuPage Rep - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 2:32 pm:
==High gear, about ready to shift to overdrive…==
HA!!! You are not running against Chris Nybo anymore Frank. Get off the computer blogging puffery and earn your salary while the checks are still cashing.
- Bored Chairman - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 2:37 pm:
Willy. See that shark? You jumped over it a long time ago.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 2:38 pm:
- Bored Chairman -,
Did I make it, I don’t want to look…
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 2:44 pm:
Willie, You don’t need much game when talking to you about anything that has to do with Rauner. You’ve worked yourself into a self delusional, fulfilling dither on him. You describe the GOP as “your party”, yet the parameters of your party have become so slim and indecipherable that just about no one but you and many sympathetic members of the other party can truly be in it. Everyone’s slytherin in your book who isn’t toting the same line you are. I’m not a victim dude. I’ve just grown weary of your prattling on and bad advice and cliche lines. If you’re going to advise Hodas of anything, it might be “repair your reputation as a guy who actually puts a stamp on something now and then.” To quote you Sir OW, I miss the Hodas of 2011. I’d say you were a “somethingbaut” or a “somethingite”, but you haven’t expressed your choice for anyone. Or is that almost everyone. Or does it depend on the day. You’re turning into 4 putt.
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 2:46 pm:
BTW, Willie. My vocation is “glib”.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:01 pm:
Bruce Rauner is not a Republican.
===You describe the GOP as “your party”, yet the parameters of your party have become so slim and indecipherable that just about no one but you and many sympathetic members of the other party can truly be in it===
And those parameters I have… are?
Reagan Rule of 80%, Bruce Rauner is not even 50%, and given his donations to the DNC, Ed Rendell, Rich Daley, and making his vacation buddy Rahm Emanuel a millionaire while donating to Rahm, I am pretty comfortable. lol.
=== I’m not a victim dude. I’ve just grown weary of your prattling on and bad advice and cliche lines===
Then don’t read them. You are playing a victim when you can’t defend your stance and blame others as to why you can’t, like Rauner plays the victim.
==I’d say you were a “somethingbaut” or a “somethingite”, but you haven’t expressed your choice for anyone. Or is that almost everyone. Or does it depend on the day. You’re turning into 4 putt.===
See, I am for “anyone but Rauner”. If I come out and support Brady or Dillard, the messenger is what come into play, not the message. Worry not, Hodas ain’t listening to me, they all know, like you, my advice is worth how its given; free, and worth less than that.
I am working on my putting, hope I don’t 4 putt when the weather breaks…
This is so delicious;
===You don’t need much game when talking to you about anything that has to do with Rauner===
Then I looked forward to the Raunerbot talking points going away, since you admit you don’t need much game and seem to be failing in the argument…unless, like you admit, honesty, integrity, and ethics and morality mean little. Then whatever you pass off as debate is no more than “selling” a lack of ethics and morals, with no honesty and integrity.
- IbendahlLuvsJBT - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:09 pm:
If Rauner’s campaign procured a loan collateralized with Rauner’s assets during the blackout period, does that not still violate the spirit of the law?
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:10 pm:
Darn, you’re onto me. Thought I had you, but alas; no. I look forward to him winning, because a lot more people who are just as morally, ethically, integrity, and honesty deprived as I am dare to disagree with you. I won’t cast any vote though until I know who was who’s chief of staff. Deal?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:22 pm:
===I look forward to him winning, because a lot more people who are just as morally, ethically, integrity, and honesty deprived as I am===
Thus, the lemmings/cliff analogy seems to be playing out as you say…
=== I won’t cast any vote though until I know who was who’s chief of staff. Deal?===
Dillard was Edgar’s, Brady wasn’t a Chief of Staff, I don’t think…
Mark Kirk was a COS, so was Secretary LaHood a COS…
Use the. “Search” key for more, but that is a good start…
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:26 pm:
- DuPage Rep - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 2:32 pm:
==High gear, about ready to shift to overdrive…==
HA!!! You are not running against Chris Nybo anymore Frank. Get off the computer blogging puffery and earn your salary while the checks are still cashing.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Well that’s certainly true, was Nybo the sixth or seventh consecutive race you lost? I can’t keep count! I don’t think YOU got 64% of the vote, eh? Didn’t even break even in your own town…
So perhaps look in the mirror and decide what you’re doing wrong, I’ll stick with my plan… Fool.
- DemDan - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:28 pm:
Whoa whoa…this guy gets rich off taking a few dollars an hour from wage earners and reinvesting it? Then takes a chunk of the profits home with him and he can do with as he pleases? And he hates Status Quo in Springfield and Union Bosses?
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:29 pm:
A Guy
“===This has to be one of the dopiest comments I’ve ever seen. Unions don’t invest money.===
Afscme Steward, this is your first 2 sentences. Let’s focus on the second one please. You want another crack at this one?
Between you and OW, I’ve endured being called dope or dopey on numerous occasions. Now you’ve stated Unions don’t invest money. C’mon man. What’s next; water isn’t wet? Silly, dopey, Raunerbot, Raunerite, Bite me…. I’ve heard them all by now. I like participating here, but there’s a narrative on some of this stuff that has taken on such a life of its own that it becomes literally inane. Willie has no objectivity left on a couple of topics. This one hits you (afscme) close to home, so I get it. I’m for smart people who are problem solvers. My own opinion is that Rauner fits that bill better than Dan, Bill, Kirk, Pat and Tio (sounds like the Jackson 5) We disagree. I love a spirited debate, but deplore a goofy one. Tried to hold up my end on this one.”
OK I’m giving you a shot. Show me where unions invest money.
Show me any definative answer Rauner has given on any serious issue he has been questioned about.
Defend him from a perspective that doesn’t repeat the shallow buzz words he has bombarded the airwaves with. Since he is the savior of Illinois, what is he going to do differently than is being done by all of the current GOP leaders, who are all apparently front men for Pat Quinn.
If you can do this, I’ll take back my references to you as a Raunerbot.
- Mr. T - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:41 pm:
The Illinois way, enforce laws and regulations (unless they are in your way), contracts (unless given to donors), mix in lies and rumors as fact against other candidates (because ideas and debates reveal your faults), and have the media in your pocket.
Why do we need to vote in Illinois?
Just auction the office to the one that has or raises the most money.
During the summer could Quinn be pushed out and Lisa put in?
- Raunerbot - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:42 pm:
Hey AFSCME Steward. What about Tom Villanova and his buddies at the Chicago Fed? Union leaders don’t make money off of government… please.
- Skeptic - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:50 pm:
“Just auction the office to the one that has or raises the most money” It’s Bleepin’ Golden!
- A guy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:57 pm:
[IP address 166.147.104.152 has been banned for life for highjacking screen names.]
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:00 pm:
=== We can’t wait for negotiations with the new King.===
The Rauner “Royal ‘We’…”
I guess the Raunerbots didn’t get the memo; no “Royal ‘We’…” unless at a wedding at Versailles.
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:06 pm:
A Guy
“Hey AFSCME Sterward, great job on not supporting Quinn and throwing Rauner under the bus. We can’t wait for negotiations with the new King.”
This is your best defense of Rauner ? You are indeed a true Raunerbot.
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:11 pm:
That last message posted with my name was not sent by me.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:16 pm:
I would hate to think others feel the need to do those things because of the discussion.
Bad form…
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:17 pm:
I am blaming this on Rauner!!!
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:21 pm:
Let’s say … a guy decides to hijack a name…
Says more about them…
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:30 pm:
“- ZC - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 11:02 am:
Chicago Cynic, I’ve been convinced I need to do more research into this statute - reality check has convinced me it’s more complex than I first realized - but you should research Citizens united more.
Citizens united, in no way, has said that -contributions- are pure speech and cannot be regulated. If that were true there would be campaign contribution caps, but there still are. CU deals with nominally “uncoordinated” spending, which by definition Rauner’s own campaign committee has nothing to do with; Rauner can’t be unaffiliated with his own wallet.
Taking the plain meaning of your post on face value … You’re just wrong.”
ZC,
You’re completely missing the point. This supreme court has increasingly declared that political spending is equivalent to political speech and has invalidated restrictions on that speech. The most recent and obvious example of this is CU. I didn’t say CU was binding authority on this statute. So no, I’m not wrong. And if you think this is constitutional as it applies to spending by Rauner on himself, I suggest you’re dreaming.
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:34 pm:
The message sent at 4:17 was not sent by me. You Raunerbots are really amusing. You can’t defend him in any way. So you hijack a screen name.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:39 pm:
[IP address 166.147.104.152 has been banned for life for highjacking screen names.]
- A guy... - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:40 pm:
- A guy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:57 pm:
Hey AFSCME Sterward, great job on not supporting Quinn and throwing Rauner under the bus. We can’t wait for negotiations with the new King.
THIS WAS NOT POSTED BY ME.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:43 pm:
I figured with the lacking “…”,
Thus my remark.
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:45 pm:
A Guy
“A guy - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 3:57 pm:
Hey AFSCME Sterward, great job on not supporting Quinn and throwing Rauner under the bus. We can’t wait for negotiations with the new King.
THIS WAS NOT POSTED BY ME.”
If you were also hijacked, I appologize.
- Samurai - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:45 pm:
A Guy=Figured that. Not your style. Regards.
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 4:52 pm:
Once again, the message at 4:39 was sent by a hacker. You guys know your IP address shows up, right ?
- gesquire - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 5:01 pm:
With his money, Rauner could have just changed his talking points and won the Democratic primary.
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 5:07 pm:
gesquire
“With his money, Rauner could have just changed his talking points and won the Democratic primary.”
It will be interesting to see what his talking points are after the primary. His loud anti union message is going to make it very hard to become a moderate. This is still a blue state. Rauner’s message resonates with the hard right, but he has alienated a whole lot of GOP leaning union members.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 5:41 pm:
I believe this complaint is as constitutionally sound as the pension reform law that was approved.
- x ace - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 6:13 pm:
First Amendment Not Without Restrictions
Fact Pattern Illinois 2014 is Interesting
Illinois Past Two Governors Were Imprisoned For Corruption
Statute Passed Designed To Stop Corruption
Candidate For Governor Violates the Statute
Issue : Does First Amendment Right of Political Expression Override The Public Interest In Honest Government
Illinois 2014 Appears to Be Presenting A Rather Interesting Twisted Scenario Of ” You Can’t Yell Fire In A Theater “.
- ZC - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 6:46 pm:
Chicago Cynic,
I’m just insisting on precision here. And I know we all say things imprecisely sometimes (me too).
>> This supreme court has increasingly declared that political spending is equivalent to political speech and has invalidated restrictions on that speech.
This is true. But re your original post above:
>> The supreme court has clearly, unequivocally and repeatedly said that political contributions are speech and restrictions of this nature are unconstitutional.
This is not true.
The distinction the Supreme Court has made between contributions on the one hand, and spending once the money is in your hand, is an odd one … but the Supremes have stuck to it, way before CU.
What’s odd about this case is that as Cynic notes two things seem to be in possible confrontation: maybe just maybe under IL law “affiliates” aren’t supposed to contribute to political campaigns, but in this case the affiliate -is- the campaign, the man himself running.
So this is potentially a fascinating case, assuming there isn’t some glaring inadequacy to the lawsuit.
And yes for the record is my hunch is too if it ever went to the courts they’d find in favor of Rauner and his right to self-expression, as a self-funder.
- Publius - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 7:47 pm:
I have two simple questions. When negotiations are completed doesn’t the state sign a contract with the union? Wouldn’t the law prevent the contracting union from making donations.
- Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Feb 27, 14 @ 8:36 pm:
Ya never know. They have a basis, so they MAY have a case. One thing’s for sure–this is NOT GOOD publicity for br. And it’s all in the Inspector General’s court now, in terms of how long he wants to deal with this matter and how thoroughly to investigate it, if he deems it so merited…!