Every now and then you get a story that helps explain the statehouse power dynamic. The saga of the “intoxicating hemp” regulation bill is one of those stories.
The governor’s office began last week by handing House Speaker Chris Welch a list of 62 House Democrats who said they would vote for the hemp regulation bill.
The day ended with the bill in flames and a decision by the House speaker not to move forward.
The reasons for one of the biggest high-profile legislative setbacks the governor has ever had are varied.
Last month, the governor surprised some folks by endorsing legislation that had passed the Senate but then completely stalled out in the House after fierce opposition among a clearly divided House Democratic caucus. Instead of working to modify the legislation to mollify most concerns, Gov. JB Pritzker decided to push ahead, albeit with some changes.
That, as it turns out, was a mistake. Enough residual opposition remained to create big problems.
As you may already know, Welch has required almost every bill to have the support of 60 House Democrats before he’ll agree to advance the legislation to the floor. And Pritzker’s Monday roll call was hotly disputed by some members.
Asked if the governor really had more than 60 votes nailed down going into that marathon caucus meeting, Rep. Will Guzzardi, D-Chicago, said, “I can’t say for sure, but it certainly didn’t seem like it from sitting in that room.”
That caucus was about as raucous as it could get. At Welch’s request, the governor sent some top policy experts to make a presentation and answer questions. The two staffers were angrily heckled with insults and misinformation, to the point where one of Pritzker’s staffers left in tears after being called a liar and worse. The other was pulled out of the meeting by top staff shortly afterward.
The governor is understandably highly protective of his staff. And his top staff, who have the sharpest elbows in the business, were enraged.
The meeting left the Pritzker folks feeling like they’d been set up. They’d done what they were asked to do with the roll call, but instead of just bringing the bill to the floor, where it was likely to receive wide bipartisan support and as many as 90 votes, Welch stood back and allowed some of his members to go completely off the rails during an hours-long caucus that resulted in the bill’s demise (although it could be said in his defense that having an argument like that in private would be preferable to letting all that vitriol against the governor become public during a floor debate).
Welch tends to pull back when his caucus is divided. We’ve seen that happen before, including on budget deals that had to be redone after Welch received negative internal feedback.
That behavior can be seen as a good thing — an improvement over the days when Speaker Michael Madigan would tell his members they were doing something even when they were reluctant. But most leaders have also tended to know what their caucuses would stomach before they cut any deals or allowed a governor to lobby their members.
Throw in the recent chaos caused by the loss of just about every member of Welch’s senior staff, and now you’ve got even bigger problems.
In this business, there’s support and then there’s support. Members might know that they’ll have to vote for a bill if it reaches the floor, but they’d rather not be forced to choose. And peer pressure can be a major factor in stuff like this, particularly in a caucus where it seems like everything goes and no brakes are ever being applied.
The bill was perceived to be a threat to the very existence of hemp businesses owned by those locked out of the legal cannabis system. And many of those folks are people of color, and lots operate in neighborhoods that don’t have an abundance of local storefront entrepreneurs.
Many Illinoisans dislike the myriad janky gas stations and head shops that are openly selling an intoxicating product to anyone who is tall enough to reach the counter. But the main pushback was about how the regulatory bill favored the existing cannabis industry and long-established alcohol distributors at the expense of the little guy. The basic Senate proposal was seen as: Gather the big powers around the table and divide up the spoils. But that didn’t go down well in the House this time.
And now nobody is quite sure how to clean up this mess.
- Venus Flytrap - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 9:28 am:
Curious that this kind of energy and political capital is being spent on a bill of this nature. Lots of urgent fiscal issues are pressing.
Is the inability to identify and focus on issues that are important to the public the new Democrat Kryptonite?
Additionally, the Governor seems to be doubling down on matters that the public rejected in the last Presidential election. He will need an updated schtick to have success nationally.
- Perrid - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 9:40 am:
Some members of the party are so determined to help the “little guy” get a piece of the action that they’re fine poisoning kids. To the point they lie and attack members of their own party.
Disgraceful.
- Out of loop - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 9:41 am:
The abusive language is inexcusable.
And…were they right? Did Gov Pritzker’s staffers lie?
- Lincoln Lad - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 9:48 am:
Strikes me the Gov has the high ground here. It seems to me that intoxicating hemp warrants regulation, particularly relative to children. If fighting proposed regulation entails name calling to the point of tears… I think the Speaker needs to address that behavior swiftly and decisively as unacceptable and beneath the office of elected representative. If Speaker Welch allowed this to happen, he owes all of Illinoisians a public apology and promise it will not be tolerated. Offenders should also apologize - though I expect that they lack the courage to do so publicly. Thank you Rich for shedding some light on this, I for one was very curious as to what happened. I’d like to know names, but recognize that this blog is not the place for it. Where do we go from here? It all begins with acknowledgement of boorish behavior, and proper apologies and promise to do better.
- Two Left Feet - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 9:52 am:
A diversity of opinion in the Democratic party on “intoxicating hemp” regulation bill in both process and substance. One of the reasons why it is argued that the legislature shouldn’t be subject to the open meetings act: sometimes the making of the sausage is messy.
- Tony T. - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 9:54 am:
While it undoubtedly helps create a sense of post-Madigan collaboration within the Dem caucus (something many members demanded,) it’s no coincidence that the 60-vote rule also fits neatly with Welch’s conflict-adverse personality and hands-off management style.
Thanks to the 60-vote rule, Welch doesn’t have to tell a member or advocacy group “no,” the caucus can do it for him. The problem is, when and how the rule is enforced is kinda squishy. When it is invoked, members tend to hop on-and-off the unofficial roll call. Or they manipulate the process by telling bill sponsors and advocates things like “I’ll vote ‘yes’ if it hits the board, but don’t count me as one of the 60.” That makes it hard to tell if the threshold to call the bill has been reached. Confusion and acrimony ensue. As Rich points out, those who never get their legislation called feel like they’ve been set-up and lied to by the Speaker or individual members.
Ironic that something supposedly created to foster unity has sparked a lot of division.
- concerned - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 9:55 am:
Leader Buckner wasn’t just helping the “little guy” he was helping himself to a promotion. I would remind all the House Leaders that when your words and actions are at odds, we all see it. No one is getting away with fooling anyone.
I would also like to know who is being removed from caucus for abuse of staff as Leader Flowers was removed from caucus for abuse of staff?
- Nagidam - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 10:07 am:
The sixty-vote rule is undemocratic in general but specifically within the House Democratic Caucus. The Speaker wants a majority (50%+1) of his caucus on an issue then fine go get forty votes. He is asking for a vote threshold of greater than three fourths.
- Observer - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 10:20 am:
It’s odd that members think they’re being lied and they’re willing to believe paid lobbyists over staff. That signals a trust problem.
- Center Drift - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 11:04 am:
Unity is one thing, implicit forced voting is another. I didn’t vote for a party, I voted for a person. If I wanted a party decision then all we would need are party leaders. I expect my legislators to stand up and vote for what they believe their constituents want and need. I know that will never happen completely but it’s nice to see a bit of it now with Madigan gone.
- Lakeside - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 11:12 am:
== nobody is quite sure how to clean up this mess ==
I would suggest making the threshold a majority or super-majority of the caucus rather than 60 votes. Additionally, the Speaker has got to be willing to be the bad guy once in a while. Seemed like a face-saving deal was there to be had on the hemp bill if Welch wanted to force it. (Maybe one based on age restrictions and packaging requirements that kicked complicated decisions on licensing issues to the spring.) He could have even put the Senate in the hot seat by sending them a take-it-or-leave-it concurrence motion that leaned in his members’ favor. Instead, he did nothing and made himself, his caucus, and the governor look bad in the process.
- paying attention - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 11:26 am:
Not sure I’ve seen the proof that “many of those [hemp] folks are people of color.” Maybe, but hard to say when it is so unregulated and no one tracks what is really happening. Prove me wrong and show your work is what I would say.
- Dotnonymous x - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 1:33 pm:
Hemp and cannabis are the same plant…tricky word games are for tricky people….cash and money are the same thing…too.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 13, 25 @ 1:39 pm:
===Hemp and cannabis are the same plant===
They’re the same species, yes.
The difference here is product labeling, age-restricted purchases, manufacturing standards, etc.