* Background, including the memo, is here if you need it. From Illinois AFL-CIO President Tim Drea…
Executive Board Members:
While the Illinois AFL-CIO remains neutral in the decision of the Democratic Party of Illinois to select a new chair, we would like to bring your attention to the attached memo from the law firm PerkinsCoie regarding the contribution of soft money to an elected federal office holder serving simultaneously as a political party chair.
After reading the memo and receiving questions for our affiliates , we asked IL AFL-CIO General Counsel, Joel D’Alba to review the memo and offer his legal opinion on how Illinois labor unions would be affected when making contributions under such a scenario. His response follows:
Dear Tim,
You have asked me to review the legal issues that have been raised in a legal memorandum prepared by a law firm that has an excellent, national reputation in advising political candidates and officials. The memorandum deals with the issues that would arise if a federal office holder becomes the chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois. The related legal consequences under the federal election laws include control by a federal office holder over political funds that are solicited, received, directed, transferred and spent outside the limits and restrictions established by the Federal Election Commission.
The main point of the memorandum is that federal law, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, was enacted to bar the use of “soft” money as a means of influencing federal office holders, and the chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois has significant responsibility over the use of such funds. The chair as a federal officer holder according to this memorandum could expose the DPI and possibly its labor donors and labor recipients of solicitations for funds to federal scrutiny by the Federal Election Commission.
Accordingly, it would be prudent for the State Federation and its affiliates to be quite cautious about making such contributions to a political organization that is governed by a federal office holder.
Regards and be safe,
Joel D’Alba
Joel A. D’Alba
Asher, Gittler & D’Alba, Ltd.
Organized labor is the lifeblood of the state party.
*** UPDATE *** From Rep. Kelly’s spokesperson…
Nancy Pelosi asked Robin Kelly to raise 1 million dollars, Robin Kelly raised 3 million. No one can sincerely challenge her ability to raise money for Democrats.
- Frank talks - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 5:45 pm:
Not sure that’s checkmate but it sure seems like check.
- Shytown - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 5:47 pm:
Well…that kind of settles things, doesn’t it?
- Frumpy White Guy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 5:47 pm:
Bye bye Robin.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 5:48 pm:
“When the unions say, ‘Maybe you shouldn’t give money.’… and the union isn’t saying ‘maybe’, that’s like a papal bull. Not only should you not give, if you’re involved in this process, you should stop this move before it happens”
- Thomas Paine - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 5:50 pm:
Seems like the easy solution here is for Kelly and her supporters to throw their backing behind Senator Castro.
Or maybe Jim Houlihan.
Or Robin could always pledge to resign Congress if elected.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 5:51 pm:
=== Nancy Pelosi asked Robin Kelly to raise 1 million dollars, Robin Kelly raised 3 million. No one can sincerely challenge her ability to raise money for Democrats.===
The definition of “can” here is like two people speaking at each other and not hearing how “can” is being used in a sentence.
Interesting, to say the least.
- Phineas Gurley - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 5:54 pm:
Man. If someone wanted to write a script that would make it look like Madigan was still pulling the strings, it would look a lot like this.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 5:58 pm:
=== that would make it look like Madigan was still pulling the strings, it would look a lot like this.===
1) The AFL-CIO worrying about what Kelly’s own counsel said Kelly can’t do… is Madigan?
2) It’s a proxy battle between Pritzker and Durbin.
3) Those who see Madigan everywhere will see Madigan… everywhere.
- Ferris Wheeler - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 5:58 pm:
Kelly Spokesperson: “No one can sincerely challenge her ability to raise money for Democrats.”
Pritzker’s Checkbook: “Hold my beer.”
Look, tomorrow there is gonna be a list probably of all of the corporations and PACs that Robin raised her $3 million from. It sure didn’t come from her Congressional district. I don’t know why Robin’s Spokesperson wants to make this about how
Much special interest money she can raise, but that seems off-brand for a Party reformer. Just stop reacting to bad news.
- Anon62704 - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 5:58 pm:
Spox: “No one can sincerely challenge [Kelly’s] ability to raise money for Democrats.”
Lawyer: “In its most basic interpretation, Section 300.62 would prevent [Kelly] from raising or spending soft money in state and local elections.”
Who ya gonna believe?
- bored now - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:00 pm:
i believe all donors should be cautious about who they give their money to. especially hard-earned union contributions.
robin represents a new vision for the democratic party in illinois. it is not a new vision for democrats, and one hopes that her vision allows for the things that madigan did very, very well (his ward organization is unquestionably the best democratic organization i’ve heard of).
it may be difficult for everyone to see atm, but a new vision for the dpi will energize the democratic party in illinois to a degree, i think, that is unheard of. if money is legitimately a concern in this vote, then it is a contest between someone who hasn’t really raised a lot of money (despite leading the 8th ward, a ward that had previously been able to almost print money) and someone who has.
illinois democrats need a fresh start…
- Frank talks - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:00 pm:
I didn’t hear one comment about her ability to raise congressional money, she obviously can. It’s the issue of raising and spending money in a different role and structure as Chair of DPI.
This is a bad reply, apples to oranges and avoidance of what’s being said.
- bored now - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:08 pm:
Anon62704: Who ya gonna believe?
those aren’t mutually exclusive. it’s just that madigan didn’t have those constrictions. pretty sure there are lots of qualified people in illinois who can manage an ie committee w the trust of robin kelly and the scc…
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:10 pm:
=== robin represents a new vision===
It’s not about any vision of any party.
Between the AFL-CIO and Kelly’s own counsel… it’s about the legality of the defined “can”, not can if able but can if legally possible.
The rest is waxing poetic and talking past what the AFL-CIO and Kelly’s own counsel say “can” means.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:11 pm:
=== those aren’t mutually exclusive.===
So you refuse Labor?
Take a breath, reset, really think about your Pollyanna thinking versus what it means to buck Labor and their legal counsel position.
- Shytown - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:15 pm:
I’d love to be a fly on the wall listening to the Spox and lawyer trying to spin this one…or maybe they’re not coordinating and that’s the problem.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:18 pm:
Today…
Can - verb
1. be able to.
“Kelly can raise money”
2. be permitted to.
“Kelly can not raise funds in the role if she wanted to”
- bored now - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:23 pm:
Oswego Willy: i don’t know much about oswego, but as long as i’ve been around, campaigns have been given the rules in advance and then figured out the ways around them to do what they want. sounds like oswego may not be that way. but madigan was successful because he bent the rules to his needs. since i figured you were a republican, i have no doubt that you want to see harris elected, as the old structures on our side atrophy.
as a democrat, i want to see innovation and energy and excitement. yep, dems need a new vision indeed. and that will never come from the 8th ward (or republicans)…
- Nick - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:32 pm:
This has turned out surprisingly messy.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:35 pm:
=== i have no doubt that you want to see harris elected, as the old structures on our side atrophy.===
It’s literally not about me. Good try. Wow. No.
It *is* about the definition of the word “can” and how both the AFL-CIO and Kelly’s own counsel see Kelly as untenable in fulfilling the role of Chair.
You had a whole comment trying to make it about “Oswego” or whatever the spin was… the ignoring of the legality the union points out and the ethical that… the Colorado Republican Party… is the model…
It’s an utter and wholly embarrassing episode for one Robin Kelly.
How many other people close to her like her legal counsel are gonna say “welp, she can’t do that”
I can’t stand bad baseball, and this, truly bad politics, it makes me ill. It’s goofy that it’s still a thing right now.
- Someone you should know - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:45 pm:
So tell me, what is Robins vision, I’ve been waiting to hear this one?
- Illinoisburbs - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:53 pm:
For the members that do not want to vote for Harris you can always rally behind Castro. Robin your plan B should be to ask your supporter to back Castro for Chair.
- Pundent - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:53 pm:
Seems to me that before you proclaim yourself as a visionary you have to nail down the basic rules and responsibilities of the job. I feel for Kelly because it looks like she got played by Durbin and others. But the best thing to do at this point is to acknowledge the obvious.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 6:55 pm:
=== For the members that do not want to vote for Harris you can always rally behind Castro.===
It’s a proxy fight between Pritzker and Durbin… for the 817th time.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 7:07 pm:
Is it really the expectation of the people commenting here that the operations of the Democratic Party of Illinois can or should continue to operate without hiring any staff?
I’m just sitting here with questions like, “Who is the database director for the Democratic Party of Illinois? If there isn’t one, what’s the condition of the voter file?”
It is very easy to isolate a chair of an organization in a fashion to allow them to be able to fall within federal campaign finance guidelines. It’s like we’re pretending that the letter from PerkinsCoie didn’t present a 3rd option.
- Frumpy White Guy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 7:08 pm:
It’s a shame that Durbin hates Pritzker so much that he would try to deprive him of a party chairman that will help him during the 2022 campaign to elect and re-elect Democrats to the state legislature. Durbin should focus in on Washington DC and let Pritzker focusing on Springfield.
- Ferris Wheeler - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 7:20 pm:
=== as a democrat, i want to see innovation and energy and excitement. yep, dems need a new vision indeed. ===
You think a new vision is going to come from a self-proclaimed top fundraiser for Pelosi?
I mean, I have already been to the FEC website and typed “Lobbyist” and “Robin Kelly” to see what I might find.
it does not scream “reform.”
- Roman - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 7:35 pm:
You gotta give Team JB credit here. The legal opinion followed by the “amen” from labor. Well played.
- Anon - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 7:37 pm:
The Dems are going to put a Chicago Alderman and the Mayor’s floor leader as state party chair? This can’t end well for what’s left of downstate’s Democratic Party.
- Illinoisburbs - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 7:52 pm:
Owego Willy- if you only knew that most members do not want Harris and they will probably still vote for Robin. But let’s get the popcorn and wait for Wednesday.
- Been There - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 7:53 pm:
====This has turned out surprisingly messy.====
I agree. And as much as most people get up in arms about cutting deals behind closed doors this probably should have been one of them. The whole entire premise behind a state party chair is to get your party united, work together and get your party candidate elected. This doesn’t help. There are only 36 members so it should have been hashed out earlier.
- west wing - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 8:02 pm:
OW - You think it’s playing a smart game installing a member of the Chicago city council as state party chair? That’s smart politics. That’s playing the game smart? Wow - I don’t understand that line of thinking. At all.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 8:04 pm:
=== You think it’s playing a smart game installing a member of the Chicago city council as state party chair? That’s smart politics. That’s playing the game smart? Wow - I don’t understand that line of thinking. At all.===
LOL
It’s Pritzker’s proxy.
It’s as simple as that.
Overthinking it makes the mind go sideways.
- Phineas Gurley - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 8:19 pm:
OW, you misunderstood. I was not saying MJM -is- pulling strings only that the choice to roll out his endorsement, release a lawyer’s letter publicly, and then have AFL weigh in publicly are getting in the way of any Pritzker/Harris reform image. It’s a missed opportunity unless it was the only way they could win. (Which I doubt).
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 8:31 pm:
=== I was not saying MJM -is- pulling strings only that the choice to roll out his endorsement, release a lawyer’s letter publicly, and then have AFL weigh in publicly are getting in the way of any Pritzker/Harris reform image.===
… by Kelly being wholly incapable of fulfilling the duties?
Now you’re making stuff up, lol
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 8:40 pm:
=== It’s a missed opportunity unless it was the only way they could win. (Which I doubt).===
Your premise only makes sense if Kelly’s counsel was in on it.
- Pot calling kettle - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 8:44 pm:
It’s a question of the role of the DPI. Under Madigan, it functioned as an arm of the House Dems. The IDCCA picked up the role of organizing for everything else with a little fundraising thrown in. Moving forward, the expectation of the DPI is leadership (philosophical and organizational) and fundraising and distribution. While Rep. Kelly might be great at all of those things, her hands will clearly be tied when it comes to fundraising and, therefore, spending, and, therefore, hiring and directing staff. That is a huge limitation…why select a party chair who will have to be so hands-off?
I like Rep. Kelly and think she would make a good chair for the DPI, but not if she has to function with such a significant limitation.
- Unreal - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 9:08 pm:
I am sorry to have ever supported Pritzker.
- Someone you should know - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 9:10 pm:
Because Rauner was such a better option for you, I’m sure
- Old School Dem - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 9:15 pm:
If Kelly wants to push back, she should get a differing legal opinion from an equally reputable attorney/firm. Should have already been done but now is certainly that time…
- Someone you should know - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 9:23 pm:
The FEC code is the FEC code, there is two words about it, you can parse all you want, you will get burnt
- Ferris Wheeler - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 9:29 pm:
@Old School -
Hate to disappoint you, but Kelly’s lawyer issued an opinion on another thread, and its the same.
Robin Kelly could not ask people for money or control how it is spent. Her name could not appear on fundraising solicitations. She could not host donor events. And so on and so forth.
Some would say figurehead. The real point is that either Bill Houlihan or Durbin’s political director would hold the real power, like a chancellor wields power behind a weak monarch.
It is almost more of a proxy fight between the political operatives of Pritzker and Durbin than between the two men themselves.
- west wing - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 9:53 pm:
Does anyone on this blog think its the right thing to do to have the current DPI staff essentially running the election even thought they’re all in the tank for Madigan? Is it me or is this another example of “only in Illinois”
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 9:55 pm:
=== Does anyone on this blog think its the right thing to do to have the current DPI staff essentially running the election even thought they’re all in the tank for Madigan?===
There’s 36 votes. Pretty easy to count.
The weighted vote is as it is.
My gosh…
- Frumpy White Guy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 10:00 pm:
=West Wingnut= Madigan is no longer Speaker or Chairmen of DPI. He isn’t even a State Representative. Add the fact that he is under Federal Investigation makes him a pariah and on everyone’s do not invite list. He is done, gone, yesterday’s news. Go to rehab to deal with your addiction to “because Madigan” .
- west wing - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 10:28 pm:
OW - I understand Harris is Pritzker’s proxy and it’s his right to have a proxy. That’s exactly right. He does as Governor. But I’m adding some perspective — some analysis you don’t want to engage in. Namely, tell me on what planet it’s smart to install a member of the Chicago city council as statewide party chair? Man, I don’t get it. I see almost zero political smarts in this choice., Again, it’s the governor’s choice and that’s my point: why didn’t he choose someone the party could unite behind, someone who has some political credentials around the state? It’s a serious question.
- Phineas Gurley - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 10:32 pm:
OW. I’m not talking about the substance of the arguments but the choice by Harris and supporters to take three public steps that evoke the previous leadership. Pretty sure Kelly and counsel wouldn’t have raised this issue on their own. LOL
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 10:34 pm:
=== some analysis you don’t want to engage in===
Are you also saying the ILGOP is going to spend tens of millions of dollars on this “Chicago Democrat” stuff?
That’s the thing. Even getting Madigan below 25%, what electoral good did it do?
Harris will be better than Madigan? The same won’t cut it.
=== why didn’t he choose someone the party could unite behind, someone who has some political credentials around the state? It’s a serious question.===
8 for 8 in statewides
Super Majorities in BOTH Illinois chambers
13 of 18 Congressional seats
If there was any more uniting the Raunerites would be extinct.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 10:37 pm:
=== take three public steps that evoke the previous leadership. Pretty sure Kelly and counsel wouldn’t have raised this issue on their own.===
This only works, in your premise, if Kelly’s counsel was in on it.
The rest is honesty to the candidacy, and Kelly’s counsel concurring.
Why would any organization like a labor group want to face sanctions for donations that could face scrutiny?
- Frank talks - Monday, Mar 1, 21 @ 11:30 pm:
Because Madigan….man, might as well become the GOP at this point. Why not all scream, drain the swamp?
The FEC rules are what they are. People are CYA did you think that they wouldn’t be?
Kelly is good, Harris is good, Castro would have been good, they’re all Dems. End of day JB is going to spend a lot of money, Durbin wants Tammy reelected and Latinos are going to be a larger part of the Dem party, if they don’t screw it up.
- bored now - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 7:32 am:
=== “Robin Kelly could not ask people for money or control how it is spent.” ===
she cannot ask people for or control ie money. she can raise hard money, though. and, oh, btw, harris hasn’t demonstrated that ability, so kind of a wash. and yet there are so many proven alternatives that this argument is silly. sure, sure, madigan’s shadow is long and it’s clear from responses on this blog that the harris/jb contingent aren’t innovative enough to figure out the ways around this (like ga dems have done). which would be kind of odd, since illinois literally has more elections than any other state and can keep political operatives fully employed.
=== She could not host donor events. ===
and yet she could attend! and i doubt there’s a donor out there who could tell you the difference.
=== End of day JB is going to spend a lot of money ===
regardless of who wins. and it will go into the ie/soft money acct. whoever wins. so we return to the fact that michelle represents the chicago machine and robin brings a new vision to the party.
- bored now - Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 7:53 am:
=== It’s not about any vision of any party ===
says someone who is not a voter in this election. but, sure, you can define it anyway you want. you say it’s not and i say it is. smh.
=== So you refuse Labor? ===
i sure didn’t say that. i think that’s a silly conclusion. you may not know the history of labor and its connection to the democratic party, but i can assure you that labor likes being a (main) player in the democratic party. i think the thought that labor would refuse whoever wins is, well, silly. but i can see why you’d like to think that.
=== Kelly can not raise funds in the role if she wanted to ===
carefully crafted language that requires very little to mitigate (and has already happened). kelly can raise money for the party. kelly cannot raise ie money. and the legacy of madigan casts its shadow again bec some people cannot possibly think of any other way to organize the dpi. yet kelly can.
=== see Kelly as untenable in fulfilling the role of Chair ===
nope. they see kelly as unable to fill the role in the way madigan did. YAY!
imagine democrats act democratically! it’s conceivable! it happens in other states! illinois can cast off that despotic legacy! YAY!
=== You think a new vision is going to come from a self-proclaimed top fundraiser for Pelosi? ===
omg! imagine that! a loyal soldier running for party chair!
harris knows the chicago way. kelly knows the democratic way. the choice really is nothing more than how much these voters want to prolong the long, slow death of the chicago machine or want to pull off the bandaid. a pretty clear choice.
=== You gotta give Team JB credit here. The legal opinion followed by the “amen” from labor. Well played. ===
dropped right before the vote. makes you wonder how long they’ve been sitting on that opinion.
=== by Kelly being wholly incapable of fulfilling the duties ===
speaking of making stuff up! well, i guess if you are unimaginative, know very little about how democratic parties are organized in the rest of the country or think the only way to do it is the madigan way!
robin has a different vision for organizing the party. takes the dpi out of madigan’s shadow. YAY!