The Illinois State Labor Relations Board was “clearly erroneous” on several points when it backed Governor Bruce Rauner’s January 2016 claim of an impasse in negotiations between the Rauner administration and AFSCME Council 31—the largest union representing frontline state employees—a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Appellate Court ruled today.
The appellate court vacated the labor board’s finding of impasse and remanded the case to the board.
“Refusing to negotiate in good faith and trying to impose his extreme demands are part of a pattern of behavior for Bruce Rauner. Instead of doing his job as governor, his overriding goal has been to weaken unions, especially those in the public service,” AFSCME Council 31 Executive Director Roberta Lynch said. “Today the court backs up what we’ve said all along, there never was an impasse. The Rauner administration should immediately come back to the bargaining table with our union instead of wasting more taxpayer money on losing litigation.”
The labor board was wrong to depart from its usual practice in determining the question of impasse and to do so without offering any explanation, the appellate panel found.
If the labor board had followed precedent of the past 30 years, “the parties would not be at overall impasse”, the judges wrote. Thus, “the ILRB’s conclusion … was in error.”
The court also found that the Rauner administration violated labor law by failing to provide AFSCME with information it requested pertaining to subjects of bargaining. “[P]arties may not claim a lawful impasse if they have failed to provide information considered relevant to those issues upon which they disagree because this effectively frustrates the bargaining process,” the judges wrote.
The case stems from contract negotiations between the Rauner administration and the union in which Rauner made an array of extreme demands, including no pay increase for state workers for four years, a 100% hike in employee costs for health care that would cost the average worker thousands of dollars a year, and a free hand to privatize public services without oversight.
The Rauner administration walked away from negotiations on Jan. 8, 2016, declaring that the two parties were at impasse and asking the labor board—whose members Rauner appoints—to give it the power to unilaterally impose the terms of its final offer.
AFSCME strongly disputed that the parties were at impasse and repeatedly sought to restart good-faith negotiations.
The union appealed the board decision to the appellate court, which ruled for AFSCME today.
Today’s ruling follows a unanimous November 2017 decision from the Fifth District Appellate Court which found that Rauner broke the law by blocking pay plan progression for the newest-hired state workers since July 2015. The Rauner administration has still not complied with that ruling.
When CMS declared impasse, AFSCME representatives disagreed and reiterated many times the parties were not at an impasse. The Union was described in both sets of notes as aying it was “shocked and appalled” and had, or was working on, counters in those areas of alleged impasse. The Union went on to say that, earlier that day, it had accepted the State’s $1000 bonus proposal in the “Wages and Steps” package. In both sets of notes, the Union stated at least three times it did not believe the parties were at impasse and it was not done bargaining. This is of particular significance since in most instances where the NLRB has chosen to utilize the “single critical issue impasse test,” both parties have acknowledged their belief they were truly at impasse. Such is not the case here. Moreover, at no point in the negotiations, prior to declaring impasse, did CMS state it was near its bottom line. “The failure of a party to communicate to the other party the paramount importance of the proposals presented at the bargaining table or to explain that a failure to achieve concessions would result in a bargaining deadlock evidences the absence of a valid impasse.” Virginia Holding Corp., 293 N.L.R.B. 182, 183 (1989). For these and other reasons expressed herein, we do not believe the record adequately supports a finding of impasse.
FREY: “What do you think about this migrant caravan that’s coming to our southern border and how does it affect Illinois? And where’s your position on that?”
RAUNER: “That’s very important, that question, Annie. Illegal immigration is very destructive of America. And we’ve have an illegal immigration problem for decades. Illinois in particular has a massive illegal immigration problem. We have hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants here in the state of Illinois and that lowers wages, it hurts union workers. It takes away union jobs, factory jobs, farm jobs. It keeps wages low and causes higher unemployment for American citizens. It’s wrong. I support comprehensive immigration reform. As part of that what we need to do is get E-Verify. I don’t know if you’ve talked about that with your listeners Annie. I’m pushing E-Verify with Congress right now. The way to end illegal immigration is to mandate that in every state across America, I’m working with President Trump and Congress right now on this issue, we need to mandate E-Verify for all employers. So that digitally everybody who is looking for a job can be checked in the federal database whether they’re citizens, or whether they have the proper visas, and so they can be prevented from taking a job that should go to an American citizen. This is something I’ve recommended for a long time. I’m working to get it done in Congress right now and it’s the single best way to stop illegal immigration, to raise American wages, and to protect American jobs for American workers”
REPORTER: “Talking about the migrant caravan. A lot of people coming from Guatemala and Honduras and El Salvador. President Trump has said he plans to close the border if this group continues advancing as a solution to not letting them in. Do you share his views on this particular issue?”
RAUNER: “Well I’ll say this. We have a process to help refugees, evaluate refugees, and understand requests for asylum. We have a process. We should respect that process and pursue it. America is a welcoming place for refugees, who are truly refugees, and who truly are seeking asylum for legitimate reasons. And I hope that anyone who’s seeking refuge in America can be properly evaluated and assisted if it makes sense. I personally believe we need comprehensive immigration reform in America. Our immigration system is broken. We make legal immigration far too difficult, far too difficult. We should streamline it, support legal immigration, as we should end illegal immigration. And I don’t believe that the most powerful way to do that is necessarily at the border. I believe the best way to end illegal immigration is by mandating E-Verify. E-Verify, it’s not high cost. It’s already a program that exists with the federal government. Mandate that in states across America so that we can know who’s really a citizen or has the proper visas to be hired. That will do the most that we can to end illegal immigration.”
REPORTER: “Should the border be closed though?”
RAUNER: “Thanks very much, everybody.”
Since he mentioned E-Verify yet again, I used the “participating employer” search function at the E-Verify website and the only state-related participating agencies I could find were the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (not under his control), the Illinois National Guard, the Illinois State Police Forensic Sciences Command, the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (not under his direct control), Illinois State University (not under his control), the Illinois Student Assistance Commission and the Illinois Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission (not under his control).
Rauner later defended the ad after an event at Chicago Hope Academy, 2189 W. Bowler St., where he ended his visit by praying with students. But the governor declined to repeat the swear word himself, opting to substitute “screwed.”
“I can say very clearly that Pritzker in office with Madigan, the people of Illinois are abused, or screwed, to use that word. I’ll use that word,” the governor said, predicting “massive tax hikes, massive increases in corruption and massive job losses.”
He also denied the commercial has an anti-gay message, saying he supports same sex marriage and has been “very supportive of the LGBTQ community as governor.”
PEARSON: “A character in your new TV ad playing a [inaudible] says that basically the election of JB Pritzker, working with Mike Madigan, that Illinois is F’ed and he uses the word “F’ed.” Can you stand before us today, with this character that your campaign is paying for, and tell us, using the word that the character uses, that that’s the case in Illinois.”
RAUNER: “I can say very clearly that Pritzker in office with Madigan, the people of Illinois are abused. They’re screwed, to use that word, I’ll use that word.”
PEARSON: Why won’t you use the word that’s in the ad that you’re paying for?
RAUNER: “I use my own words. My words are: we are in huge trouble. Turn out the lights in the state of Illinois to Pritzker and Madigan getting power together— massive tax hikes, massive increase in corruption and self-dealing, and massive job losses. We’ve already been losing businesses, too many businesses for decades. The stream of businesses that have been leaving Illinois will turn into a flood if Pritzker and Madigan are in power together.”
PEARSON: “Why won’t you use the word that the character uses of the person you’re paying in that ad to tell that to the people of Illinois? It’s your campaign. Your campaign is saying, ‘Illinois is F’ed.’ Why won’t you use the word?”
RAUNER: “I use my words for myself, and when I—”
PEARSON: “But that is your campaign. That is your words.”
RAUNER: “My word is— I’ll say this, we’re screwed. We’re screwed as the state of Illinois, if Pritzker and Madigan get power, we’ll have gerrymandered districts again after 2020 census— nightmare for our democracy. We’ll have one-power rule with more corruption and domination by Madigan’s political machine that’s been destroying our state for 35 years. We’ll have a massive income tax hike. We’ll have a new vehicle-miles tax. We’ll have $11 billion in new spending that will be in deficit again, very quickly, and we’ll have massive out-migration of businesses and families. We’re all screwed as a state if those two guys get in there. That’s clear.”
“Everything in an ad is a choice,” [said Chris Mooney, who is a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago and is president of the state politics section of the American Political Science Association], including having a white man play the clergyman, having the marriage and the music.
“I do know they chose to do those things and the fact that marriage equality is still a hot issue, and the fact that the governor continues to really try to shore up his right after sort of devastation in the primary, all that suggests that maybe that’s what’s going on here,” Mooney said.
* Some other coverage…
* Rauner Campaign Drops Bleeped F-Bomb In ‘Unholy Union’ Ad Slamming Pritzker - Gay lawmaker slams Rauner for “blatant homophobia”; LGBTQ group Equality Illinois says “Our weddings are not a joke.”
A Democratic state senator says she is sharing her story for the first time about being date-raped in 1991 because she takes issue with statements made several years ago by the Republican candidate for Illinois Attorney General.
“I just shared that for the first time in 27 years. I didn’t expect me to do that.” […]
The 50-year-old Lightford on Thursday said she felt compelled to talk about her rape, after hearing about past comments made by attorney general candidate Erika Harold, that many victims of sexual harassment become “very promiscuous.” Harold, 38, reportedly made the comment when she was 22.
“It did the total opposite for me,” Lightford said.
* I have the transcript of her full remarks. I talked with Sen. Lightford yesterday to make sure she was OK with me posting this here. You can also listen to her tell her story by clicking here…
LIGHTFORD: Yeah, you know I just shared that for the first time in 27 years. I didn’t expect me to do that. But when I just learned of her, I just sat on the couch and I listened to the story that ran on CBS 2, and she was 22 years old when she made those comments. And then what come up to my mind was I was 23 years old when I was date raped. And I wasn’t looking to be date raped.
I had just graduated from Western Illinois University. I came home for the summer and I was celebrating. And I met a guy during Spring Break while I was home. And back then there were no pagers and cellphones and Twitters and emails and all of that. So, either you would get collect calls or calls would come in or you would make collect calls. So he called me a couple times and we became friends over the next 3-4 months. And so he’s like ‘well when you graduate we’re going to celebrate’ you know. So I used some of my graduation money and bought me a great outfit to go out and celebrate. And I met him at a club downtown on Michigan Avenue. We had a great time. There were other people at the club I knew. We danced and drank champagne. It was all a celebration. I was the first in my family to earn a degree.
And so when the party was over he says ‘Well let’s go grab a bite to eat and instead of going in separate cars, just get in the car with me and I’ll bring you back to your car.’ Okay, no problem. So, while I was in the car with him he hopped on the highway and we were going far south and I wasn’t really familiar as much at that age with the South Side of Chicago. I had one relative that lived at 8040 S. Vernon. I remember my uncles’ address, my great uncle.
And so when we passed 95th Street I’m thinking ‘where are we going?’ And then the split happened. I don’t know if I went 57 South or the other way. I don’t know. But we started driving a little bit. So I asked him “Where are going to eat? Why are we going so far from downtown?’ You know there was a lot of eateries down there. So he went ‘oh, well I’ve got to stop by the house.’ And I said ‘oh okay.’
So he drives and wherever we get off, I’ve never been in this area at that time of my life. But when we pulled up to the house, it was a corner house, we just pulled right into the garage, attached garage. So I didn’t expect anything. My feet were hurting and I was taking my shoes off in the car. So I pulled my shoes back on and go on in the house.
And it just looked a little abandoned to me, a little bit to me, like coming through the kitchen. And I thought ‘is this how this guy living?’ You know. His house look a little, you know. So he directed us, I guess it was a kitchen and then a hall. And the bedroom was immediately to the right. And then he directed us in there. And went in there and it’s only a bed and it looked really like doom and gloom and I can see over him a little bit into like what would be the living room I guess, or the dining room, of the house. And it was just an abandoned looking house. And so now the red flag really pops up and we’re in the room and I’m just standing there.
And I say ‘Well are you gonna just go ahead and do whatever you need to do so we can go? Because I’m getting a little hungry.’ And he said ‘Oh, well, oh gee, your feet hurt, have a seat. Take your shoes back off.’ And I was like ‘Oh, I’m fine.’ You know. And he was like ‘Have a seat, you’ll be okay.’ And then I sat down and I kept my shoes on and he says ‘Take your shoes off.’ And I was like ‘Well are we going to be much longer?’
And he did like this call. I don’t know this like ‘whoody who’ call or some kind of call. And this guy appears at the door with a pitbull. And I was afraid from that point. And he had the door open and the guy must have come up from the basement because he left that door open. And I can hear all these male voices. And the first thing that came to mind was ‘I’m in a drug house and I could either be gang raped or he could let the dog out on me. Like would anybody know?’ Because I didn’t have, back then there were no pagers or cellphones, or anything. So I wouldn’t have been able to get any help. And I didn’t know where I was.
And my celebration from graduating from college, I just…. And I thought I knew him. It had been months of friendships and conversations. And so the guy left, and they said some things to each other. And the guy left. And he closed the door and said, ‘Well just lay down and relax.’ And I said,’I just want to leave. I think we outta just go get something to eat and just leave.’ And he said ‘No, be still.’ And he told me to be quiet and he raped me.
And after he raped me, we got back in the car. And I just sat there and cried silently. And then we got back to the car and he drove me back to my car. And I got in my car like, ‘What the hell just happened?’
I had only had two sex partners in my life and I had never been taken advantage of like that before. And it was more of ‘Maybe I shouldn’t have went with him’ but I thought he was my friend and I knew him and we were just celebrating. We were supposed to go to get something to eat. And where was I? And if I go and try to tell law enforcement I can’t tell them where I was. I can’t tell them anything. And at this point is the guy really who he said he was all this time?
I was like really, I was really in a bad space. I remember driving home and saying to myself ‘Thank God I am on birth control so I won’t be pregnant.’ Because I would not be able to look at that situation. And then I went the next day to a clinic and I had an STD test done and I so didn’t have chlamydia or anything.
I can’t tell you right now if he put on a condom or not. I just, once he made me lay down, I don’t know anything beyond that.
But I have never really shared this story. I turned 50 in May this year and I just remember feeling a little free and telling my mother one day. She and I were talking and I said, ‘Mom, I feel a little free.’ I said, ‘You know I was, I experienced date rape the summer of ’91.’ And she was like, ‘What? And you didn’t say anything?’ I was like ‘No, I was just, I think I was too embarrassed and too ashamed. And I didn’t know what to do with it. And I’ve lived with it for 27 years and now I’m finally telling you. And I feel good about it.’
And I didn’t go into any details with my Mom so she’ll hear it now I’m sure. But I never shared it with anybody. But I was moved to share it today because I was truly a victim. I didn’t want to have sex with him and I never became promiscuous. To teach me abstaining from sex would have done nothing for me in this situation. And her views, I don’t know that they go along with being a victim of rape. And I didn’t know that it was date rape. I didn’t learn there was a title to what I had experienced ’til later in life.
REPORTER: The reason you felt compelled to tell your story today is because you’re obviously against Erica Harold. And I would think, if you asked her, she would say ‘I’m opposed to date rape.’
LIGHTFORD: I just think it doesn’t tie in with the suggestions on how to go about it. And if you’re in a position as the attorney general I would think that there should be a little more thought processes in how to address a victim who has been sexually raped. And not come to the conclusion that they liked it. Or that they would become promiscuous. Or a whore as a result. It did the total opposite for me. I actually spent the next six years of my life having very little to no sex. Not trusting men at all. I just began to, I would only go on dates during my lunch, at work, or meet me at the LA Fitness to workout. Or Saturday matinees. Because I just was like so afraid to put myself in that position again. And I didn’t think that I was doing something wrong at that time. I had no idea that this guy was like this. I mean no one could have told me that.
REPORTER: I’m sorry I have to ask you this. And you kind of touched on it a little bit. You didn’t want to report it because you didn’t think people would believe you, or…?
LIGHTFORD: I just didn’t know where I was. I had no idea. I got in the car going. I couldn’t even lead police back there. I didn’t know where I was. Now that I am older and I’ve been all through Chicago I believe I had to be somewhere in the south suburbs. I don’t know that we drove as far as Indiana. But we had to exit off of 147th or Cicero or, I mean we were in one of the communities in that area. And it had to be a community that was experiencing some type of foreclosure or something happening because we were in an abandoned house. And they were selling drugs out of the house. I’m sure. Cause it was just a bunch of guys’ voices, and there were dogs. And I don’t know if they were dog fighting. I didn’t know what it was. But the pitbull was enough for me. But I didn’t report it because I just didn’t. I don’t know if I didn’t think that anybody would believe me. I think I didn’t believe that that had happened to me. I think I was still like ‘Why? Why would he do that to me? And what was that about?’ And I thought I was being a friend and if he wanted to go out on more dates I thought he was a nice guy. I mean maybe we could go out on dates and things. I didn’t think that he saw me as someone, you know, that he wanted to take me to a drug house for my graduation gift. And take advantage of me.
REPORTER: You were how old then?
LIGHTFORD: I had just turned 23.
REPORTER: 23.
LIGHTFORD: Yeah, and for her to say that at 22, it just touched me. I just listened to the story and it just hit me. I was like, I thought right then ‘I was 22′ and then I said ‘No, I had had my birthday. I graduated from Western. I had my birthday May 10th and graduated from Western all in that same week.’ And so it had to be a couple weeks after that when I went out with this guy. So it was either the end of May or early June of 1991.
* Facebook has a search function that allows you to look up how much each candidate has spent on FB ads since the company started keeping track in May of this year. As of today the totals are…
JB For Governor/Rauner Failed Me: $2,120,937
Citizens for Rauner: $168,690
Those totals include a small number of ads that weren’t officially labeled.
* With that in mind…
Today, the Pritzker campaign released a new digital ad, “Blame Game,” highlighting the man who can do no wrong… according to himself.
It stars Bruce Rauner and features the various ways he’s blamed others for his failures. From the dismal state of the state to the school funding crisis to his fatal mismanagement in Quincy, Bruce Rauner claims he’s “not in charge” while Illinoisans pay the price.
St. Clair County prosecutor Brendan Kelly remains one of Democrats’ most prized recruits of the cycle. The Irish-Catholic Notre Dame graduate and Navy veteran has been called the “Conor Lamb of Downstate Illinois” and is exactly the type of moderate Democrat who has done well here in the past. But President Trump’s popularity in this coal and steel-heavy district looks like it might be too much for Kelly to overcome.
A new New York Times/Siena College poll shows Bost leading 48 percent to 39 percent (up from 44 percent to 43 percent a month ago). Trump, who carried the seat 54 percent to 40 percent four years after Barack Obama won it by two points, is coming to Bost’s hometown this Saturday for a rally, and they have a decent story to tell: U.S. Steel announced earlier this year it would add 800 jobs at its old Granite City works as a result of tariffs.
Moreover, the GOP-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund has been aggressive in attacking Kelly’s prosecutorial record, alleging more than 50 percent of county crimes were pled out. Kelly has said he won’t vote for Nancy Pelosi, but this is one place where Trump’s base appears to have reawakened in the past month. In addition, Bost just won the endorsement of a large teachers’ union. The race isn’t over, but it’s a Democratic frustration.
The Illinois Education Association endorsed Bost last week.
The attorney general of Illinois should be independent, unafraid of special interests, political parties or politicians.
I’m Erika Harold and I’m accountable to you, not the president, not the governor.
And unlike Kwame Raoul, I’ll never take orders from Mike Madigan.
That’s a strong ad.
…Adding… From Aviva Bowen at the Raoul campaign…
It’s a little late for Republican Erika Harold to convince voters she would be independent of Bruce Rauner, who said he’d ‘personally recruited’ her. As for the president, Donald Trump and Republican AGs are in court working hard to take healthcare away from Illinoisans with pre-existing conditions, and Erika has been typically silent. That’s not independence or courage, but it’s consistent with her position to eliminate the ACA and hurt our families.
Rep. Jeanne Ives, R-Wheaton, who barely lost to Rauner in the GOP primary, said McCann is working for Madigan. While some are voting for McCann because he is pro-life on abortion, Ives said, they should know the senator is attacking a few of the most pro-life legislators.
“If you are pro-life or speak up against public sector unions, these mailers are supposed to hurt you,” Ives said in an interview. “Sam McCann is not about winning the governorship. This is about silencing the rest of us. The end game here is doing Madigan’s bidding.”
[Rep. Lindsay Parkhurst’s] campaign spokesman, Timmy Pawula, said he was baffled with McCann’s mailer “with no valid points” to back the claim she is a “Rauner Rino.” […]
Most of Parkhurst’s money comes from Republican organizations largely funded by Rauner.
That’s some good newspaper writing right there, folks.
If it’s fair game for the Republicans to constantly harp on Speaker Madigan’s influence, it’s fair game for McCann.
Nancy Pelosi and Mike Madigan couldn’t be happier. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is pushing their radical liberal agenda. Londrigan supports Pelosi’s government run health care that would end Medicare as we know it.
To pay for it? They’d have to double everyone’s income taxes.
Now Londrigan is using DC liberals to lie about Rodney Davis. Shameful. Dishonest. That’s liberal Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. Defending Main Street is responsible for the content of this ad.
* For Brendan Kelly, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan and Lauren Underwood…
Progressive Turnout Project expanded its investment in targeted digital advertisements to get out the vote in support of an additional 21 Democratic candidates in competitive U.S. House and Senate races across the country. The organization will spend another $837,000 on top of a previously announced $1.8 million digital GOTV investment in 31 races.
* American Federation of Teachers radio ad attacking Randy Hultgren…
* Script…
Career politician Randy Hultgren has stopped working for us. During his twenty years in Springfield and Washington, he’s taken over half a million dollars from the insurance industry. And voted to gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions like asthma, cancer and diabetes. Hultgren would even allow insurance companies to hike up premiums on older Americans. AARP calls it an “Age Tax.” It’s time to stop Randy Hultgren and start fresh with Lauren Underwood. Lauren is an African American registered nurse who worked for President Obama on public health. She knows and understands health care challenges first hand. That’s why she’ll fight to lower costs and expand access to quality health care for everyone. On November 6, vote for Lauren Underwood, the Democrat for Congress.
* AARP…
Use of the AARP name and logo in a recent political ad in support of Democrat Lauren Underwood in the race to represent Illinois’ 14th Congressional District were unauthorized and do not represent the views of the non-partisan organization that works on behalf of older adults and their families.
The liberal mob pushing their extreme views. Trying to hijack our democracy. And steal seats on the United States Supreme Court.
Despicable lies. Disgusting character assassination. A new low, even for them, falsely accusing an innocent person of being a sexual predator.
Brett Kavanaugh is a faithful husband, loving father and proven public servant and the liberal mob set out to destroy him, and his family, because of their own extreme political agenda.
Now if Nancy Pelosi is put back in charge, they are threatening to impeach President Trump and Justice Kavanaugh. And [Democratic candidate] is on their team.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. The choice couldn’t be clearer.
On November 6th, vote to defeat the liberal mob. Vote against [Democratic candidate].
* My headline sums up what I think about the point of this Tribune oppo piece…
Anyone who’s lived through a major home renovation has a horror story or two, and when J.B. Pritzker embarked on a $25 million remodel of his Gold Coast mansions, more money brought more problems.
Workers wrongly installed a bedroom safe. Expensive imported Italian marble slabs intended for a child’s shower could not be located. There were issues about whether a famed French designer had contributed to delays and cost overruns.
A frustrated J.B. and wife M.K. Pritzker had enough. They blamed the general contractor, and believed he had to go.
“I am 100 percent for firing!” she wrote in a 2010 email.
What resulted was a legal dispute that lasted several years. How it unfolded provides a glimpse into the billionaire Democratic governor candidate’s wealth and the steps he takes to keep it from public view, including asking for confidentiality agreements from contractors and fighting in court to keep the jury from hearing about his riches.
With two weeks remaining until Election Day, the Rauner Campaign is launching a new TV ad titled “Unholy Union.”
The ad highlights the devastating results of giving JB Pritzker and Mike Madigan total control of Illinois. Together, they will bankrupt Illinois with billions in new proposed spending and a massive tax hike.
Pritzker and Madigan – key players in the Chicago political machine – have repeatedly engaged in corrupt behavior to benefit themselves. Madigan has made millions off of high property taxes in his role as a property tax appeals lawyer, helping cronies like Pritzker get reductions on their property taxes. And Pritzker has engaged in a “scheme to defraud” taxpayers by ripping toilets out of his mansion, dodging $330,000 in property taxes.
Since allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation in Madigan’s organizations surfaced, Pritzker has continued to funnel millions into his coffers. When Pritzker’s staffers sued the campaign over harassment and discrimination, Madigan has been notably silent.
It’s clear that Illinois can’t afford the high taxes and corruption of the unholy union between Pritzker and Madigan.
Officiant: Repeat after me. I, Mike Madigan, take you, JB Pritzker, as my unlawful partner in destruction, to raise property taxes, corrupt government, and bankrupt Illinois’ future.
Madigan: Done, deal.
Officiant: And I, JB Pritzker, take you, Mike Madigan, to honor and obey til death do us part.
Pritzker: Always have, always will.
Officiant: By the power vested in me, I now pronounce Illinois [F-bomb partially bleeped].
Voiceover: Mike Madigan and JB Pritzker, an unholy union Illinois can’t afford.
Perhaps as a symbol of how far Illinois and the nation have moved on the issue of same-sex marriage, the fact that the ad depicts a “wedding” of two men is no longer its most provocative part.
In the 2002 Republican primary for governor, the late conservative activist Jack Roeser sent out mailers that thanked Jim Ryan for supporting “special rights for homosexuals” and “opening the door to gay marriages.” The mailing featured two bridegroom figurines atop a wedding cake. Roeser backed then-state Sen. Patrick O’Malley over Ryan, who was then the state’s attorney general.
Still, the ad could prove to be a reminder to social conservatives unhappy with Rauner’s actions as governor that included his signing a law expanding rights for transgender people.
* The Pritzker campaign’s response from Galia Slayen had sort of a marriage theme to it…
It is only fitting that Bruce Rauner would choose to end his campaign by blaming others for his own failures. After four years of seeing their governor more interested in affairs with special interests, badmouthing his own state and refusing to compromise, the people of Illinois are looking forward to their divorce from Bruce Rauner being finalized on November 6th.
*** UPDATE 1 *** With a hat tip to a commenter…
Rauner just vetoed a law to protect LGBTQ Illinoisans from workplace discrimination. Now he is mocking same-sex marriage as an "unholy union". Rauner's blatant homophobia has no place in Illinois. #twill#ilgov@WindyCityTimes#LGBTQhttps://t.co/1UbbhplOe3
*** UPDATE 2 *** From Brian C. Johnson, CEO of Equality Illinois…
We are deeply disappointed by Gov. Rauner’s new campaign ad that mocks marriage equality by tying two of his opponents together in a parody wedding.
We remind the governor that the official platform of the party he leads opposes marriage equality. A recent national poll found that a plurality of Republicans still oppose marriage equality. There is still much work to be done to move the hearts and minds of many Republican voters to value the dignity of same sex weddings. As someone who has officiated same sex weddings, Gov Rauner could serve as a model of inclusivity and use his campaign to vigorously promote full acceptance of LGBTQ Illinoisans. Instead, he chooses to raise the specter of gay marriage to turnout the most extreme elements of his base. We recognize a dog whistle when we hear one.
The governor should be ashamed of using the LGBTQ community for comedic value to make a political hit. Our weddings are not a joke. Gov. Rauner does not represent Illinois’ values with this ad.
*** UPDATE 3 *** The governor was on the Big John and Ramblin’ Ray show today and couldn’t say if this was his ad…
HOST 1: “I love the new ad. And we’ll play it after you leave because we don’t have time right now.”
HOST 2: “The ‘Unholy Alliance.’”
RAUNER: “Oh my goodness, we’re so abused if those two guys go in there.”
HOST 1: “Is that one of yours or is that an outside group?”
The Rauner campaign just confirmed that the "Unholy Union" ad launched today was commissioned by their campaign and @BruceRauner approved it before it was launched. #twill
“Bruce Rauner’s new ad is the last gasp of a failed leader stumbling out of office, willing to co-opt the homophobia of schoolyard bullies to try and divide us one last time. It’s not just offensive, it’s pathetic. Four years ago, Rauner invited voters to throw him out of office if he failed to get results. Without any accomplishments to speak of, Rauner’s re-election campaign has been reduced to cheap jokes, lame dog-whistles to conservatives who never forgave him, and an awkward public courtship of Donald Trump. As Rauner embarrasses himself in these final two weeks, Republicans voters have to ask themselves – are they proud of the campaign Bruce Rauner is running?”
“I thought this ad was so remarkable that I shared I with a couple of listservs – political scientists around the country,” said Chris Mooney, who is a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago and is president of the state politics section of the American Political Science Association. “I’ve received dozens of responses (from) people who can’t believe it. All over the country, they say they’ve never seen anything like it. … It’s an exteme version of a negative ad.”
Mooney said at first blush, he can’t see how the ad will help Rauner. He received lots of snarky comments from colleagues, he said, including one saying the ad belongs in a campaign magazine’s hall of shame. […]
“Everyhing in an ad is a choice,” Mooney added, including having a white man play the clergyman, having the marriage and the music.
“I do know they chose to do those things and the fact that marriage equality is still a hot issue, and the fact that the governor continues to really try to shore up his right after sort of devastation in the primary, all that suggests that maybe that’s what’s going on here,” Mooney said.
