* Fran Spielman last week…
Armed with a new poll showing overwhelming opposition to taxpayer-subsidized stadiums for the Bears and White Sox, former Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn is launching the political version of a goal-line stand.
Quinn plans to push for a proposed ordinance Wednesday that would direct the City Council to put an advisory referendum on the November ballot asking Chicago voters a question similar to what he asked 448 voters in the statewide poll he paid for:
“Do you support or oppose the Chicago Bears or Chicago White Sox receiving state or local taxpayer subsidies in order to build a new stadium or real estate development?”
* Results…
* Dave McKinney today with more results from the same poll…
Overwhelming majorities of Illinoisans favor stronger state ethics reforms that lawmakers have sidestepped despite a string of high-profile public-corruption cases, new polling by former Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn shows.
The statewide survey found exceedingly high support for a constitutional amendment empowering voters to impose tougher ethical constraints on Springfield and for a prohibition on indicted ex-legislators, like former Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan, from drawing a state pension while awaiting trial. […]
There is no discernible legislative movement on any of these initiatives, and Quinn says he hopes the lopsided results from his polling will spur lawmakers into action.
“It shows convincingly in my opinion that the people really are for reform way ahead of incumbent politicians, whether it’s in the Legislature in Springfield or it’s back in Chicago with the City Council and the mayor,” Quinn said. […]
Quinn commissioned the Democratic polling firm, Blueprint Polling, to conduct a survey of 448 Illinoisans between March 13 and 15. The poll reached people via text message and through live-calling and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.4%.
* Click the pics for more crosstab numbers. “Do you support or oppose a new law to prohibit Illinois legislators from voting on bills where they have a conflict-of-interest in the bill?”…
* “Do you support or oppose a new state law to immediately suspend taxpayer paid pensions to legislators when they are indicted for corruption and prohibit them from ever collecting a taxpayer-paid pension if they are found guilty of felony corruption?”…
* “Do you support or oppose a new Illinois law to prohibit the double-dipping practice of legislators and other elected officials collecting two taxpayer-paid salaries and pension credits at the same time?”…
* “Do you support or oppose the Illinois Ethics Initiative, a constitutional amendment that would give voters the power to directly enact stronger ethical standards for state and local politicians through initiative petitions and binding referendums?”…
- H-W - Monday, Apr 1, 24 @ 1:51 pm:
It is odd that the level of support for specific ethics reforms is so high regardless of party preferences, and yet only one party is pushing that agenda - the one without the power to make good change.
- Benjamin - Monday, Apr 1, 24 @ 2:11 pm:
@H-W: I don’t think it’s odd that the party with no power is the one that has the luxury of a principled take on the issue.
- Excitable Boy - Monday, Apr 1, 24 @ 2:22 pm:
- the luxury of a principled take on the issue. -
Are you saying that the majority party can’t take a principled stand on ethics? That’s a strange take.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Monday, Apr 1, 24 @ 3:11 pm:
Binding referendums are rarely a good idea. Plus there’s no idea what the ethical standards might be. Let that one go.
- TNR - Monday, Apr 1, 24 @ 3:18 pm:
Always beware of Pat Quinn bearing “good government” gifts in the form of a referendum. Never forget that he brought us the “cut back amendment,” which helped intensify partisanship in the legislature and arguably enabled Mike Madigan to consolidate power in a fashion no one saw coming.
- Excitable Boy - Monday, Apr 1, 24 @ 3:27 pm:
- which helped intensify partisanship in the legislature -
Oh please, did it cause the same intensification nationwide as well?
The idea that the ILGA was some kind of heavenly body prior to the CA is laughable.
- H-W - Monday, Apr 1, 24 @ 3:49 pm:
@ Benjamin
We are of the same mind on this one. Leadership should require decisions be made. When those in positions of power to enact reforms that are very popular (and reasonable and morally founded) is the same as advocating against reform. Democrats (my party preference) ought to take this measure up, especially given the bipartisan nature of these reforms. Building bridges between parties on the easy issues is an important step toward restoring bipartisanship in governance.
- H-W - Monday, Apr 1, 24 @ 3:56 pm:
=== When those in positions of power to enact reforms that are very popular (and reasonable and morally founded) is the same as advocating against reform. ===
I should have said when those in positions of power choose not to reform, it is the same as advocating against those reforms.
- Homebody - Monday, Apr 1, 24 @ 4:01 pm:
Clearly the answer on ethics is to create more red tape and hoops for regular state employees to jump through, but do nothing related to elected officials. /s
- Shytown - Monday, Apr 1, 24 @ 5:24 pm:
This is not surprising, and it shouldn’t take a poll for the Bears or Sox to understand this. They’ve both done a fairly lousy job of trying to sell this to the public. Unforced errors on both sides. Consultants and in-house are having trouble me reading the room in Springfield and taking the temp of voters. This may all be over before it ever really got started.
- Suburban Mom - Tuesday, Apr 2, 24 @ 10:34 am:
===Do you support or oppose a new state law to immediately suspend taxpayer paid pensions to legislators when they are indicted for corruption===
This feels stunty, there’s substantial federal case law on this. It’d be cool if ethics reform didn’t get bogged down in the same “let me repeatedly propose flatly unconstitutional ideas that sound good so I can rail against them not being adopted” game that pension “reform” did.
Guys, you can suggest ideas that require the repeal of the Contract Clause or the Due Process amendment until the cows come home, but you know and I know that you’re just making mouth noises so you can later complain that ENTIRELY PREDICTABLY, the courts refused to let you put your mouth noises into action.