* Background is here if you need it. Streetsblog…

Southwest-suburban State Sen. John Curran (R-Lemont) represents a district stitched together by trains. Two Metra lines and five Metra stations sit within its borders: Belmont, Fairview Avenue, and Downers Grove Main Street on the busy BNSF line, plus Lemont and Willow Springs on the Heritage Corridor. Thousands of commuters use those stations every weekday.

Despite this, when the Illinois state legislature had a chance this spring to address the looming $771 million Chicagoland transit fiscal cliff with longterm funding, Curran, like all of his Republican Senate colleagues, voted no. Then he doubled down with a Chicago Tribune op-ed, framing the plan as a “Chicago bailout” for “the grossly mismanaged CTA and decades of unfunded pensions,” calling a modest delivery fee “one of the most… regressive taxes in decades.”

* And then the publication goes on to claim that he voted “No” because of campaign contributions from unions like LiUna (Laborers) and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150…

Here’s what he didn’t say. Since transit funding talks began in early 2024, Curran has collected more than $370,000 from road construction unions. These are the groups most invested in keeping billions flowing to highways instead of saving bus and train service.

Campaign finance records show that in August 2024, the Chicagoland Operators Joint Labor-Management PAC (better known as Local 150) gave Curran $250,000. Two months later, they cut him another check for $107,750. […]

Zoom out, and the pattern is even clearer: Curran has received nearly $688,000 from Local 150 since 2017, and another $80,500 from LiUNA, another prominent road construction union, since 2018. All told, that’s three-quarters of a million dollars from road-building interests alone.

Um, Senate President Don Harmon has received millions of dollars from Local 150 and LiUNA and he voted for the bill, which wasn’t mentioned until the site updated the post after a protest from Leader Curran’s spokesperson.

* And when it was pointed out to them that Local 150’s lobbyist filed a witness slip in favor of the bill, this was the response…

My point, and the reason I don’t view a correction as warranted, is that this procedural filing doesn’t fully capture the broader context we reported:

• The slip reflected support for the third amendment which was filed after the tollway-surcharge funding was removed, which Local 150 had previously opposed.
• Throughout negotiations, Local 150 consistently voiced skepticism toward the tollway funding mechanism, which was widely viewed as the most significant, long-term revenue source in earlier drafts.
• Local 150 has not issued a public statement of broad support for HB 3438 as originally conceived, and its PAC activity and lobbying history on highway funding remain a central part of the story.

The union opposed a revenue source involving a toll increase. But it, along with all other unions, supported the final bill, which was in flux all day. That’s the only floor vote which matters.

And Local 150 did, indeed, issue support for the bill as passed. Anyone who demands support for legislation as “originally conceived” demonstrates a complete lack of awareness about how the legislative process works. Bills are amended all the time.

* But the bottom line here is that no Republicans voted for that bill when it hit the floor. And their “No” votes weren’t because of Local 150 because 150 supported the final version.

They mainly opposed it because the bill would raise taxes. That’s the default Republican Party position on pretty much everything. Occam’s Razor, etc. The SGOPs are currently working on an alternate funding proposal that wouldn’t raise taxes, but it uses some one-time revenues for ongoing operations and critics warn that dipping into the Rainy Day Fund would lead to a credit downgrade for the state.

Also, that rapidly evolving bill was passed shortly before midnight on the last day of session, so everybody knew it was doomed in the House.

The main reason for passing it out of the Senate was so Senate Democrats could go home and say they tried, and to attempt to set the terms of the upcoming summer talks with the House and stakeholders.

* Leader Curran demanded a correction/retraction and didn’t get one. Local 150 is now demanding a retraction. Click here to read the letter. Harsh.