* Some top Dems have been asking for this new track…
Today, Think Big Illinois released a new ad highlighting why Illinois voters should have the opportunity to decide whether they want a tax system that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few. The ad, “A Chance To Vote,” also calls out opponents of a fair tax for their “nonsensical” and “completely incorrect” claims in their desperate attempts to keep our current unfair tax system in place.
“A Chance To Vote” will run on television in Chicago and Springfield, and across digital platforms. Watch the ad here.
“There are very few times where Illinoisans have the opportunity to directly decide an issue that impacts them and their families. Legislators in Springfield have the chance to give voters that opportunity, and let them choose whether they want to keep our current unfair tax system in place or want a system that works for everyone,” said Quentin Fulks, Executive Director of Think Big Illinois. “While opponents of a fair tax continue to rely on misleading claims and false attacks, Think Big Illinois will continue to stand up for middle-class families in the fight for a fair tax.”
That’s what newspapers call the attacks against the fair tax.
They can’t defeat the plan on its merits, so they’re trying to jump it on the low road.
If the General Assembly gives the green light, we’re all going to have a say at the polls next November.
The people of Illinois deserve a chance to vote on this important proposal.
This is fair and necessary.
It’s time for change.
Let’s make our tax system fair.
…Adding… To address some folks in comments who are arguing for even more constitutional questions on the ballot, I would agree with you. That’s why I strongly supported a constitutional convention in 2008. But an overwhelming 67 percent of voters rejected the convention, so they essentially agreed with the status quo. And that status quo is we can only vote on what the General Assembly puts on the ballot. The people spoke. It’ll be 2028 before that question automatically comes before them again and it was abundantly clear that would be the case in ‘08.
Not a bad ad. I give it a B. It can speak to people, like me, who oppose the graduated tax, but think that we should have the chance to vote on it. Put it on the ballot and fight that battle, not the battle over whether or not to let voters decide.
C+. It’s better than last week’s but still feels too hostile to make the inroads in public opinion they are seeking. They’d do better if they ended the ad with “let’s try to make Illinois’ tax system fairer”, rather than “let’s make Illinois’ tax system fair.” (Because any sentient adult being knows that no tax system devised will ever be perfectly “fair”.)
Many have forgotten that in 2012 the legislature voted overwhelmingly to put a pension reform referendum on the ballot — a rather modest one at that. It would have required a 3/5th vote on any bill that would enhance pension benefits. It lost.
With the sound off (and even on) the beginning looks like an anti-progressive tax ad.
Is JB gonna bank on this same team to win at the ballot box?
- lake county democrat - Monday, May 13, 19 @ 1:39 pm:
The difference with a convention is that *everything* would have been up for change. One issue in particular was a ban on gay marriage, which were being passed in other states (nobody foresaw the Supreme Court holding gay marriage a Constitutional right - there were fears that if any state allowed gay marriage the Supreme Court would strike it). Rejecting the convention wasn’t a vote for the status quo, it was a vote against potential chaos.
- Moist von Lipwig - Monday, May 13, 19 @ 1:40 pm:
Sounds like some folks on here might want some 1980-Pat-Quinn-style activism to get important Constitutional Amendments on the ballot by petition, though they may have scoffed at the idea before.
I’m confident that a good many of those now demanding to let the people decide on pensions, term limits, et al were staunchly opposed to Con-Con in 2008. All the major interest groups were opposed. I predict they will be opposed to it again in ‘28.
== Rejecting the convention wasn’t a vote for the status quo, it was a vote against potential chaos. ==
Any proposals approved by a Con-Con would have to be ratified by the people to become part of the constitution. In other words, “letting the people decide” really isn’t a principle that either party really believes in. It’s invoked only when it serves temporary partisan interest.