* I get more than a few e-mails like this one every day, but I thought I’d share it with you to see what you think…
URGENT ALERT – FUNDING BADLY NEEDED TO CONTINUE COURT FIGHTS FOR YOUR RIGHTS
COOK COUNTY AND CHICAGO POLITICAL MACHINES HOPE TO BLEED ISRA DRY
As many of you know, the freedom-loving citizens of Illinois are saddled with an ardent gun-grabber for a governor and a state legislature that is absolutely worthless when it comes to protecting the citizen’s innate right to keep and bear arms.
The courts are the last hope for Illinois citizens who honor this nation’s traditions and respect our Constitution. At the very least, the courts provide a pathway for justice to be served as we saw in the Heller and McDonald decisions.
Right now, the ISRA is locked in battle with the gun-grabbers in the Wilson v. Cook County lawsuit. This suit seeks to overturn Cook County’s arbitrary gun ban which prohibits Cook County residents from owning popular hunting and target shooting firearms. On Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments in the case. You can watch and listen to the proceedings at the two links below.
Watching and listening to the courtroom activities will give you a flavor for the intensity of the battle to save your rights. All out legal warfare is not cheap – and we’re spending a lot of money on your behalf. Our financial reserves are running short so, if we are to continue battling for your rights in the courts, we need your generous donation.
The gun owners of Illinois badly need your support. If our legal funds run dry, the well-moneyed gun haters will run all over the top of us and then you can kiss what little rights you have left good bye. So please click the link below and make a generous donation. The future of gun ownership is counting on you to help, today. Just a reminder, donations to the ISRA are not tax deductable.
Please, do your very best to keep your bumper-sticker slogans out of comments. I will be on the road for part of the day, so I won’t have time to constantly police the comment section. Don’t force me to ban you when I get back to the office. Thanks much for your cooperation.
* A state legislator wants to change a particularly onerous Illinois law, which makes it a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison to make an audio recording of an on-duty police officer…
With the constitutionality of Illinois’ eavesdropping law already facing several court challenges, a Democratic state representative from Northbrook has filed a bill that would allow people to audio-record a police officer working in public without the officer’s consent.
“I believe that the existing statute is a significant intrusion into First Amendment rights, so with the prosecutions and the court cases that have been reported about, it just seemed that this is a problem in need of a swift solution,” Rep. Elaine Nekritz said in an interview Thursday.
Illinois’ eavesdropping law is one of the strictest in the country and makes it illegal to audio-record police without their consent, even when they’re working in public. The state is one of a handful in which it is illegal to record audio of public conversations without the permission of everyone involved.
Exempts from an eavesdropping violation the recording of a peace officer who is performing a public duty in a public place and speaking at a volume audible to the unassisted human ear.
Police officers have a tough job, and the thought of a passel of citizens with microphones turning an ordinary arrest into something resembling a huge flashbulb-popping press conference might well annoy them. They might also worry that troublemakers will sneakily edit recordings to give a false impression of how police acted. But that hasn’t been a problem in other states where eavesdropping laws are more relaxed.
This is an area where the law has to catch up with technology. Recording devices are everywhere, even in such places as Syria, where citizens have captured images of their struggle for democracy and beamed them to the world.
Here in America, we increasingly are told we have no expectation of privacy when we are in public and that our every move may legally be recorded by surveillance cameras.
In such an environment, police officers should not expect that their actions while on duty are private.
“I don’t know why a public official on public business on public property has any expectation of privacy,” Nekritz said.
The issue of recording police came to a head when a Chicago woman, Tiawanda Moore, made a recording with her BlackBerry because she thought two police internal affairs investigations were trying to talk her into dropping a sexual harassment complaint against a patrol officer. That would have seemed to fit an exemption under the current law, which permits a citizen to audio-record police officers if the citizen believes the officers are breaking the law. But Moore was charged with a felony.
In the end, she was acquitted, and last week she filed a lawsuit. But ask yourself this. If attached to your right to turn on a recording device is the very real possibility you could be sent to prison for up to 15 years, how much of a right does that feel like? Most people would be hesitant to assert their rights in that scenario. The Moore case illuminated the flaw in the current law.
Provides that for the purposes of the telephone solicitation and marketing and opinion research exception to the eavesdropping statute, permits a non-employee to record the conversation if the corporation or other business entity announces it may record or listen to a telephone conversation with a non-employee.
That’s also perfectly reasonable. If they’re recording me, I should be able to record them.
With four out of five students in Illinois community colleges failing to get a degree on time, Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon is calling for better math education in high schools and tying colleges’ funding to student success rates.
You have to read way down into the story to find out why…
Michael Monaghan, executive director of the Illinois Community College Trustee Association, said Simon’s plan to link colleges’ state aid to student performance is a good idea, if it is done right. It’s not as simple as looking at graduation rates, he said, because some students never intend to get a degree. Instead, they want to improve job skills or transfer to a different school.
Exactly. And, just as importantly, lots of community college students work full time. They simply can’t graduate in two years. Chicago State gets a lot of the same criticisms for its on-time graduation rates, but it also enrolls a lot of people who have jobs and kids and other things going on in their lives.
There are legit criticisms of community colleges. But their two-year graduation rates shouldn’t be one of them.
Todd Brown, 24, of Bolingbrook, thought he was doing everything right to land a job as a state trooper.
He graduated in 2009 with a criminal justice degree from the DuPage campus of Westwood College. He passed the written and physical tests to join the Illinois State Police. They even began background checks on him, interviewing his former bosses and neighbors.
But Brown’s path to becoming a trooper was abruptly halted when he received a call telling him he didn’t qualify for employment because Westwood didn’t have the proper accreditation. His degree didn’t count. Today, he is $55,000 in debt because of the degree. He works for an armored truck firm.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced a lawsuit against the private, for-profit college yesterday…
“Westwood officials lied to potential students about almost every aspect of its criminal justice program, from its exorbitant costs to a graduate’s slim career prospects,” said Madigan, whose office conducted a yearlong investigation into Westwood’s practices in Illinois. “Now, many of these students are left with thousands in debt in exchange for a college degree that has very little value in the real world.”
Madigan’s goal with the lawsuit is to shut Westwood’s Illinois campuses down and force the college to return students their money.
Madigan says, according the federal government, a degree from a for-profit college costs five times more than a community college.
Madigan says federal student loans account for close to 90 percent of for profit college revenues.
* In other education-related news, the voucher bill may be back, according to Illinois Statehouse News…
Riding the wave of a victory in school reform last year, education activists are gearing up for another push this spring, this time for school vouchers.
Through vouchers, tax dollars are used to help pay for tuition at private schools. Although attempts at instituting a voucher program have been made, the idea has yet to achieve enough support to make it out of the General Assembly.
Past plans in Illinois have targeted vouchers at children enrolled in underperforming schools and those who live in economically depressed areas of the state.
“All of the most serious school choice proposals we have seen over the past couple of years have at least one thing in common; they in their own way try and deliver school choice to students in the worst schools,” said Collin Hitt, a senior policy analyst with Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank.
Hitt said his organization plans to ask lawmakers to revisit the issue again this year. […]
Studies on the effectiveness of voucher programs in better educating students are mixed.
Chris Lubienski, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, studies school choices, and he said academic gains are minimal.
“Once you control for the fact that there’s more special education students, more English deficient students, more disabled students, in public schools, when you control for those differences, public schools actually might outperform private schools on standardized tests,” Lubienski said. “It’s kind of a surprise.”
But Hitt points to studies such as one by the Friedman Foundation, a group that advocates for school vouchers, to demonstrate the merits for school vouchers. The Friedman Foundation study says “the empirical evidence consistently shows that vouchers improve outcomes for both participants and public schools.”
This just in: Republicans in the Illinois Senate are voluntarily suspending their participation in the tuition waiver program that has brought so much dishonor — and so much dishonorable conduct — to the General Assembly. We applaud Minority Leader Christine Radogno for securing commitments that all 24 members of her caucus won’t award waivers for the 2012-13 school year.
Over in the House, at least 38 of Minority Leader Tom Cross’ 54 Republicans also won’t attach their names and reputations to this cesspool of scandal. Which raises an obvious question for Democratic legislators who answer to House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton — as well as to any holdout House Republicans — and who now don’t immediately renounce tuition waivers:
What, exactly, is your problem? Do you think citizens by the millions haven’t learned what a rip-off you’re perpetuating?
The decision by Radogno’s caucus is limited to the next school year. But we trust her senators to make it permanent when they realize that the three reasons they’re giving for their move won’t change in subsequent years:
* People who aren’t public employees really shouldn’t be participating in the public pension system. But they are…
Township Officials of Illinois is a private trade group, not a governmental agency, but its employees are eligible for public-sector pensions subsidized by taxpayers, the Better Government Association has learned.
No one from TOI is currently drawing a pension from the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund. But TOI’s four full-time employees, two of whom are registered lobbyists, stand to draw the potentially lucrative retirement benefit down the road, according to interviews and records.
The Illinois General Assembly recently passed a bill aimed at curbing public pension abuses by some labor union leaders. But the reforms, signed into law on Jan. 5 by Gov. Pat Quinn, don’t address private groups such as TOI that lawmakers over the years have let into the system.
Similar groups include the Illinois Municipal League and Illinois Association of Park Districts. Like TOI, they work for and lobby on behalf of their governmental agency members – yet they aren’t public bodies and don’t directly serve taxpayers.
TOI was founded more than a century ago. But it wasn’t until 1971 that the General Assembly, for reasons not totally clear, amended the state pension code so TOI could participate in the pension plan. However, TOI didn’t join IMRF — the second-largest public-sector pension plan in Illinois, with $25 billion in assets — until 2001.
House Speaker Michael Madigan has created an Illinois House special committee that will review the investment strategies of the state’s pension funds.
Mr. Madigan, a Democrat, appointed Republican House Minority Leader Tom Cross to chair the committee, according to a letter today to House Clerk Timothy Mapes.
The speaker said in the letter that he was creating the Special House Committee on Pension Investments to “examine the investment strategy of the State pension systems.”
“The pension systems in Illinois not only affect the beneficiaries, but every citizen in Illinois,” Mr. Cross said in a statement. “We plan to invite the systems, their investment managers, outside investment experts and others to examine the state’s systems’ current investment strategies and make sure they are in the best interest of all parties. “
* Yesterday saw an outpouring of opposition to the vile SOPA/PIPA legislation. Several members of the Illinois congressional delegation contacted me to say that they were withdrawing their support or announcing that they were opposed. Others announced opposition to local media. And this movement wasn’t just confined to Illinois…
It appeared by Wednesday evening that Congress would follow Bank of America, Netflix and Verizon as the latest institution to change course in the face of a netizen revolt.
Legislation that just weeks ago had overwhelming bipartisan support and had provoked little scrutiny generated a grass-roots coalition on the left and the right. Wikipedia made its English-language content unavailable, replaced with a warning: “Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet.” Visitors to Reddit found the site offline in protest. Google’s home page was scarred by a black swatch that covered the search engine’s label.
Around 11 a.m. PT [yesterday], the rush of visitors looking for ways to contact their members of Congress overwhelmed several Web pages of individual senators. […]
The amount of traffic “temporarily shut down our Web site,” Sen. Ron Wyden, the leading opponent of the Protect IP Act, wrote on Twitter.
By noon PT, the Senate’s Web sites were loading again, but slowly or with difficulty. The Web site of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who’s a sponsor of Protect IP, was generating a 500 server error.
Other Senate Web pages displayed this message: “Sorry, the web page you have requested is experiencing technical difficulties. The Webmaster has been alerted. You will be automatically redirected to the www.senate.gov home page after 10 seconds.”
* But not everybody was happy with yesterday’s actions…
In one early sign that the blackouts and protests would have an effect, the MPAA yesterday characterized them as “stunts.” The group’s chairman, Chris Dodd, took a thinly veiled swipe at Wikipedia by denouncing the protests as “an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on [the sites] for information and [who] use their services.”
* Chris Dodd is a former Democratic US Senator and is a longtime friend of US Sen. Dick Durbin. Sen. Durbin is still listed as a co-sponsor of this legislation. And despite a promise by his press person yesterday, Durbin’s office never did get back to me about why he is still supporting this goofy bill. He did, however, send a form letter to an Illinois blogger…
Effective enforcement of intellectual property laws is critical to the encouragement of innovation and the creation of jobs. In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of Internet websites that are devoted to the unauthorized distribution and sale of pirated and counterfeit goods. These websites deprive innovators and businesses of revenue and result in the loss of American jobs. In addition, these websites present a public health concern when they sell counterfeit, adulterated, or misbranded pharmaceutical products.
I will keep your views in mind as the Senate considers this issue in the coming months.
* Let me make something very clear here. I hate pirates. I publish a copyrighted newsletter, and I have had to take action against people who posted material from that newsletter online.
But pirates, by very definition, operate outside the law. They’re gonna be with us pretty much no matter what. Stomping on the 1st Amendment and breaking the Internet in order to stop some pirates who will find another way to evade the law anyway seems pretty stupid to me. In other words, Congress shouldn’t mess with people like me in order to get at the pirates. It’s insane.
* Here is a good summary of some of this bill’s harmful impact…
1. Guilty until proven innocent. One huge issue with the ways these bills are written is that you don’t necessarily have to be a proven violator of copyright infringement, all you have to do is be accused. An accusation alone is enough to cause detrimental harm to your business. You could lose your domain, have your website shut down and even be sued. All with no warning.
2. You’re held responsible for your user content. If you have any part of a website, blog or social networking page that allows for users to submit content, you will be responsible for what they submit. For example, if you have a blog and allow comments, you’ll be responsible for monitoring them to make sure you don’t have any pirated content submitted or links provided to sites that contain pirated content. Or, if you are on Facebook or Twitter, you’ll be responsible for monitoring your followers’ posts on your page to make sure they don’t have forbidden content. Can you imagine how difficult this will be?
3. Social networking as we know it will change. We all use social networking to build our businesses, but if these bills are passed, social networking sites will be forced to drastically censor their sites, limiting the content that can be shared and changing the way we use them for our businesses.
4. Where to sell your items? If you rely on sites like Etsy, Ebay or even Facebook to sell your items, you’ll be up a creek as they’ll be forced to shut down to avoid prosecution. Each of these sites contain photos submitted by users, the problem is, there would be no way for them to inspect every single photo uploaded to their sites to make sure it has the appropriate copyrights.
The world has changed. The way that people discover and purchase new content has changed. It’s a new world. They should try living in it — and continuing to prosper in it — instead of trying to shove it back the way it was when Groucho Marx still had a hit TV show.
Exactly.
Get a clue, Senator Durbin. Man up and tell your old buddy Dodd that legacy media shouldn’t be allowed to write legislation that regulates new media. And, trust me, I will never forget this vote. Ever.
One year after illinois raised individual and corporate income tax rates, the state remains in a precarious fiscal position with persistent payment delays – and the situation is unlikely to significantly improve in the near-term.
The backlog of unpaid bills from the General Funds in the Comptroller’s office (ioC) alone stood at $4.273 billion at the end of this quarter – and that number only tells part of the story. Specifically, the total accounts only for what has been submitted to the Comptroller’s office for payment, and not what is being held by state agencies. For example, the Department of Healthcare and Family Services is holding an estimated $2 billion in Medicaid bills alone, which was not the case last year.
When those totals are combined with other obligations, including corporate tax refunds, employee health insurance and interfund borrowing repayments due to other state funds, the Comptroller estimates the backlog to be around $8.5 billion.
in addition, the level of unpaid General Funds bills is up several hundred million dollars since the end of last quarter, and has continually exceeded $3 billion over the last year. the cash flow situation is unlikely to improve in the near-term, as the state this year will make its pension payments with current revenues and not bonds, and Medicaid spending is projected to dramatically increase in the next six months.
* However, Gov. Pat Quinn’s budget office recently put the bill payment backlog at $7 billion…
* $3.5 billion in vouchers held at the Comptroller’s Office
* $2 billion in Medicaid vouchers held at agencies to manage payment cycle
* $0.5 billion in business tax refunds
* $1 billion in group health insurance premiums.
Since that was written earlier this month, vouchers held at the comptroller’s office have apparently increased by $700 million. So, there’s not much difference between the two.
* In other news, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker attempted again to deflect negative public opinion away from himself by whacking Illinois. Walker’s opponents just gathered a million signatures in a recall attempt, but Walker says Illinois is worse. Watch…
* As you can tell by the black banner at the top of this page, today is a national day of protest over stupid attempts by Congress to dangerously meddle with the 1st Amendment and the Internet’s functioning. Click here for more info about the legislation. I laid out my own opinion opposing the bill here.
I hate to take sides on issues, particularly federal issues, but this congressional meddling has to be stopped.
* Thankfully, US Sen. Mark Kirk just announced his opposition to the goofy proposal…
United States Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) today released the following statement announcing his opposition to S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act.
“Freedom of speech is an inalienable right granted to each and every American, and the Internet has become the primary tool with which we utilize this right. The Internet empowers Americans to learn, create, innovate, and express their views. While we should protect American intellectual property, consumer safety and human rights, we should do so in a manner that specifically targets criminal activity. This extreme measure stifles First Amendment rights and Internet innovation. I stand with those who stand for freedom and oppose PROTECT IP, S.968, in its current form.”
* Sen. Dick Durbin has been a particular problem. He is listed as a sponsor of the legislation, which is supported by Senate Democratic leadership. But I talked to one of his top aides today who clearly signaled that Durbin is backing away from the bill. “It’s not a priority,” I was told.
I also asked a Durbin spokesperson to send me the Senator’s official position on this legislation. I’ll post it when it arrives.
You might want to call Durbin’s office if you get a chance today: (312) 353-4952. Please, be polite, but firm.
* There will be no Question of the Day today in observance of the national strike.
*** UPDATE 1 *** Another one comes out in opposition. From a press release…
Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) today issued the following statement on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA):
“The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senate counterpart the Protect IP Act (PIPA) are two bills dealing with internet piracy and the toll it is taking on American jobs and content creators. Unfortunately, the way these bills are currently written does not ensure an open and free internet and that is not something I can support.
“American entrepreneurialism is vitally important to the economy and is something I believe we must protect by ensuring that ideas and content created here cannot be pirated through rogue websites based in places such as China. To do so we should bring representatives from all parties concerned to the table to address all of the major issues which have been presented; with an open and free internet being the central tenet to this debate.”
Congressional drafters essentially let Hollywood lobbyists write a bill that regulates the Internet. It was a very dumb idea.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Congressman Randy Hultgren’s chief of staff Jerry Clarke just called to say that Hultgren is also opposing the SOPA bill. Good for him.
*** UPDATE 3 *** From Congressman Joe Walsh’s Twitter feed…
Thank God twitter isn’t blocked today so I can tell you that I refuse to vote for #SOPA. #uncensored #StopSOPA
*** UPDATE 4 *** From Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky’s Twitter page…
Thank you all for the many calls today to #StopSOPA! I want you to know that I oppose #SOPA & will vote against it
When an issue can manage to get both Jan Schakowskyk and Joe Walsh on the same page, it cannot be ignored.
*** UPDATE 5 *** Congressman Mike Quigley straddles the fence…
“Like many of my constituents, I share concerns on several key provisions that were included in the original SOPA text. For this reason, I fought against the DNS blocking authority and voted to remove this part of the bill during the Judiciary Committee markup. The White House later announced its opposition to this provision and Chairman Lamar Smith announced that it would be removed when the markup resumes in February. SOPA is far from finalized and still has 30 amendments under consideration that would drastically alter the language of the bill and its effect on open access to the internet. I encourage my constituents to continue to stay in touch with us with their thoughts as Congress considers this issue.”
If you want to call Quigley, his office number is: 773.267.6583.
*** UPDATE 6 *** Congresswoman Judy Biggert’s position statement via the Daily Herald…
“I do not support the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA),” she says. “Protecting the intellectual property of American businesses, artists, and entrepreneurs is critical to our economic prosperity. But in a digital age, that task has become far more complex. That’s why any new laws governing the web must strike a careful balance, preserve the full innovative potential of the internet, and ensure that legitimate online services aren’t subject to unnecessary burdens. Unfortunately, the current version of SOPA does not strike that balance. My hope is that both sides will work toward a better solution to protect American innovators from digital theft without the unintended consequences feared by many in the online community.”
*** UPDATE 7 *** From Congressman Don Manzullo’s communications director…
Rich,
I wanted to let you know that Rep. Manzullo is extremely concerned that the language in the Stop Online Piracy Act (HR 3261) would allow the possible infringement of free speech, and he opposes the bill.
*** UPDATE 8 *** From Congressman Bob Dold…
“I do not support the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in its current form. I am a strong advocate for protecting intellectual property rights, but I also believe we must protect our small and innovative businesses from unnecessary and potentially devastating burdens. I encourage all sides to come together to develop legislation that protects intellectual property while also preserving the innovative and valuable foundations of the internet.”
If you’re like most Americans, you’re probably scratching your head over the bizarre pardon spree Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour appears to have gone on during the final day of his political career.
Sitting where we do in Chicago’s suburbs, we recognize we’re too far away from Mississippi to understand everything that took place there or inside Barbour’s head, but at first blush, it appears to be a case of a governor pardoning 200 felons — including many murderers — almost whimsically.
In doing so, he may have violated a requirement Mississippi has for a 30-day public notice in advance of the pardons, and if that’s the case, as the state’s attorney general maintains, some of the pardons may be rescinded.
If the same thing were to happen in Illinois — and it’s more than possible that someday it could — the state would have no similar remedy, simply because the state has no similar restriction.
The Governor may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, after conviction, for all offenses on such terms as
he thinks proper. The manner of applying therefore may be regulated by law.
* State law gives the Prisoner Review Board the power to review and recommend executive clemency decisions, but the governor has broad powers to decide whom to pardon.
There was, of course, a huge uproar in Illinois when George Ryan commuted the sentences of all prisoners on death row. But what Barbour did has dwarfed that because, unlike Ryan, he didn’t seem to follow any set logic…
Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour defended his controversial pardons Wednesday, saying that although he understands the feelings of “vengeance” from the families of victims, those he released “deserve a second chance.”
Barbour granted nearly 200 pardons, including those to a handful of murderers, in his final days as governor.
“I understand, recognize and respect the fact that if you were injured by somebody, or if your loved one was killed, that there may be vengeance, there may be fear, there may be all these things,” said Barbour on CBS’s “This Morning.”
“A lot of guys aren’t going to be rehabilitated. These have been. They’ve redeemed themselves. They deserve a second chance,” he added.
According to CBS, eight of the men Barbour pardoned were convicted of killing their wives or girlfriends. And this isn’t the first time he did that…
Four years ago, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour was criticized for pardoning six men who had been convicted of killing their wives or girlfriends. And now, he’s done it again.
News of the pardons immediately sparked a revival of two lingering House bills in Jackson. One would bar those convicted of capital murder from working in the Governor’s Mansion, and the other would mandate public hearings before a felony offender could be pardoned by the governor, so that victims could have a say in the decision.
“It’s created a buzz in Mississippi, and not a positive one for Haley as he goes out,” says Professor Wilkie, who has counted Barbour as a friend since the sixth grade. “There’s a particularly good editorial cartoon in The Clarion-Ledger this morning that shows Haley in an airplane departing for Washington, flying over the state capitol and dumping these pardons and clemencies like so many bird droppings on the capitol.”
A Mississippi judge Wednesday evening issued a temporary injunction forbidding the release of any more prisoners pardoned or given clemency by outgoing Gov. Haley Barbour, whose actions created an uproar.
The pardons include four convicted murderers and a convicted armed robber who were released Sunday. The five now must contact prison officials on a daily basis as their fate is adjudicated.
The pardons are “a slap in the face to everyone in law enforcement and Gov. Barbour should be ashamed,” said state Attorney General Jim Hood.
The process of releasing 21 other inmates has been halted, said Hood, who sought the court order.
“The pardons were intended to allow them to find gainful employment or acquire professional licenses as well as hunt and vote. My decision about clemency was based upon the recommendation of the Parole Board in more than 90 percent of the cases,” Barbour wrote. “The 26 people released from custody due to clemency is just slightly more than one-tenth of 1 percent of those incarcerated.”
“This governor, Gov. Quinn, is a tool,” he said. “This state is an embarrassment. People are leaving in droves because of taxes and regulations. One man runs this state, and it’s not Gov. Quinn; it’s (House Speaker) Mike Madigan.”
* Yesterday, Treasurer Dan Rutherford attempted to explain why the Mitt Romney campaign was challenging Santorum delegate petitions signatures…
Several months ago the rules for placing Delegates/Alternates for Presidential nomination on the Illinois ballot were reaffirmed. No changes were made.
The law states that in order to be on the ballot the candidates for Delegate/Alternate need 600 valid, registered voters’ signatures from within that Congressional District.
Speaker Gingrich, Congressman Paul and Governor Romney’s campaigns filed slates of Delegates/Alternates in Illinois and all had over 600 signatures.
The Senator Santorum campaign in Illinois filed slates in 14 of the 18 Districts. Of the 14, only 4 had 600 signatures. No objection was filed for any District that had the required 600. One District had only 614 signatures and no attempt was made to vet signatures to bump them to be below the 600. There will be candidates for Delegate/Alternate for Senator Santorum on the ballot.
The 10 Districts that objections were filed had:
CD 1 356 Signatures
CD 2 179 Signatures
CD3 214 Signatures
CD10 422 Signatures
CD 11 378 Signatures
CD 12 261 Signatures
CD 15 250 Signatures
CD 16 222 Signatures
CD17 227 Signatures
CD 18 117 Signatures
As one can see, the minimum requirements are dramatically lacking.
The first day one could circulate a petition was October 8 and the rules were reaffirmed months before. All of the campaigns had the same amount of time.
No objections were filed for technical violations, strictly those that, on the face, did not have the minimum number of signatures.
As some commenters pointed out yesterday, the GOP nomination could very well be over by the time Illinoisans get to vote, and Romney would probably not want to needlessly make enemies here.
* And by the end of the day, everybody apparently agreed to drop their challenges and move on. From the Rick Santorum campaign…
Leadership from the Romney campaign (Dan Rutherford), Gingrich campaign (Bruce Hansen and Nick Provenzano), Paul campaign (Chris Younce) and Santorum campaign (Al Salvi and Jon Zahm) have agreed today to withdraw all petition challenges in Illinois against one another’s statewide and delegate petitions.
* And speaking of updates to yesterday’s stories, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. released his own poll yesterday after Debbie Halvorson’s poll showed him ahead 48-35…
Halvorson said that with the incumbent polling so low, she sees a “path to victory” for herself, especially with so many voters in the district telling her they don’t like Jackson: “I don’t barely have time to get my name out and they say, ‘Oh, you’ve got my vote,’” Halvorson said.
But Jackson’s pollster says that after all the controversies he has been through in the last two years, to still have 61 percent of voters saying they hold a “favorable” opinion of Jackson, “I see a superhighway to victory.” […]
In her poll, Jackson won the initial ballot 44 percent to 30 percent.
Then they read the 496 voters positive messages about both candidates. Jackson still led Halvorson, Lake said.
Then they read negative statements about both candidates. They mentioned that the House Ethics committee opened an investigation of whether Jackson improperly used congressional staff to campaign for him to be appointed to the U.S. Senate.
After all that, Jackson still led Halvorson, Lake said.
Lobbying by Illinois lawmakers would be barred under a bill proposed by the Legislature’s inspector general, who monitors ethical conduct by state representatives and senators.
“Legislators should not be allowed to be paid to lobby on behalf of clients before any public body,” said the inspector general, Thomas J. Homer, who plans to introduce the bill within the next two weeks. […]
A spokeswoman for John Cullerton, the Senate president, who has registered in the past as a lobbyist, said that for now, Homer’s proposals are a matter for the Legislative Ethics Commission to consider.
“If legislation is filed, we will fully review the issues and implications of legislative action on this topic,” said the spokeswoman, Rikeesha Phelon.
Steve Brown, a spokesman for Michael Madigan, the House speaker, said Madigan would need to see the legislation before deciding whether to support it. “There are other provisions in state law that protected the public from wrongdoing, and that’s the goal here,” Brown said.
* There are just a tiny number of people who are doing this. The Chicago law is strict enough that much aldermanic contact can be considered lobbying, including doing zoning work. But an earlier report showed how the practice can be over the line…
A lobby report filed with the city shows Dan Burke was paid $5,000 to lobby City Hall for the Chicago Roofing Contractors Association, the local wing of the industry group that represents roofing contractors throughout the state.
In February 2005, Burke co-sponsored a bill backed by the association of state roofing contractors that sought to protect its member companies from competition. Burke said his sponsorship was not a conflict of interest, even though the measure, which passed, benefited his client.
Rep. Burke registered as a lobbyist for the roofing contractors in April of 2005, just two months after he sponsored their bill.
* From a very serious story about sports concussions we get this…
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn got dinged big time playing quarterback for Hinsdale’s St. Isaac Jogues five decades ago. He wasn’t sure what to do until he heard a referee say, “Get up! Get up! Get up!”
He got up, but it wasn’t easy.
“I never saw the guy who hit me,” Quinn told the Chicago Tribune. “I was flat on my back. I don’t know if I got a concussion, but I really got leveled.”
* As I mentioned last week, there is a longstanding gentleman’s agreement between the two major parties not to challenge each others’ presidential petitions. That’s usually the case within parties as well.
Republican consultant Jon Zahm is behind some of those challenges. Zahm said he filed challenges to Mitt Romney’s petitions after Romney’s people filed challenges to Santorum’s and to petitions filed for Santorum’s delegates. Zahm is working for Santorum’s campaign. According to the Daily Herald, Santorum’s delegate petitions are more than a bit iffy…
Delegates for GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum have filed the minimum legal number of petition signatures to appear on the ballot in just four of Illinois’ 18 available congressional districts.
In 10 others, delegates who filed signatures came far short of the 600 required to appear on the ballot, a review of the signatures found. They didn’t file any delegates in four districts.
* Zahm’s challenge of Romney’s petitions is based on the fact that the candidate apparently left out the name of the state that the Notary Public is authorized to work inused a Massachusetts notary…
Your Objector states that the Candidate has filed a Statement of Candidacy notarized by a Notary Public authorized to take acknowledgements of deeds and documents in the state of Massachusetts. It is a mandatory provision of the Illinois Election Code under 10 ILCS 5/10-5 that a candidate for office in the State of Illinois utilize a Notary Public commissioned in the State of Illinois. Not having a valid and legally sufficient Statement of Candidacy invalidates the entire candidacy of the office seeker.
…Adding… From Zahm…
Rich, the submitted copy of my challenge had Massachusetts written in. The issue is that it was an out of state notary. A granite city case invalidated a candidacy on that point alone due to a missouri notary on an illinois petition
Oops.
* From a Zahm e-mail…
I have reached agreement with the Gingrich camp that there will be a mutual release of challenges [today] at 3 pm. The Romney group is moving forward, at this point, with their delegate challenges so I am moving forward with my challenge to their statement of candidacy. I have attached it for you. I am still hoping for a mutual agreement with Treasurer Rutherford. I am continuing with my challenge against Paul as I have found some evidence of Paul activity against the Santorum petitions in concert behind the scenes with Romney.
Zahm’s challenge to Ron Paul’s petitions is based on the allegation that the petitions “list the purported home residence address of Ron Paul as 8000 Forbes Place, Suite 200, Springfield, VA 22151 By information and belief the actual home residence address for Ron Paul is in Lake Jackson, Texas.”
Oops again.
By the way, wouldn’t it be great if the Board of Elections put the text of these challenges online, along with all generated paperwork from the cases? I’d like to be able to go through the transcripts of some of these hearings. Just saying…
* Meanwhile, Congressman Jackson sent out a somewhat strange e-mail last Friday with a long list of endorsements, including from people who have not yet formally said they were endorsing the incumbent…
Last week, he published a list of re-election campaign endorsers including the president of the United States and the mayor of Chicago, but the nine-term incumbent congressman confidently conceded that the presidential and mayoral endorsements were of the word-of-mouth variety and not officially released by Barack Obama or Rahm Emanuel. The comments came during a brief interview at the Rainbow PUSH Coalition Martin Luther King, Jr. breakfast Monday morning.
“I’ve called them specifically and spoke with them and asked them for their support, and they’ve said they’re with me absolutely,” Jackson said.
Former 11th District Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson is challenging Jackson in the newly-drawn 2nd District.
“Everything that comes out of his mouth is questionable and has been pretty questionable for about 17 years,” Halvorson said.
Despite Halvorson’s claims, Jackson’s list seems to hold up…
Jackson has released a list of top elected officials he says are backing his re-election bid, including President Barack Obama, Gov. Pat Quinn and Mayor Rahm Emanuel. […]
Jackson acknowledged Obama and Emanuel have not publicly endorsed him, but he said they’ve pledged their support in private and he expects public endorsements soon. […]
Halvorson challenged Jackson’s list, but an Obama campaign official said the president told Jackson last fall that he would be endorsing him and Emanuel’s campaign spokesman, Tom Bowne, confirmed Emanuel told Jackson last fall in person that he has Emanuel’s support.
Usually, you want to have a big build up to endorsements from a president, a mayor and a governor. Instead, Jackson released them on a Friday before a holiday weekend. Weird.
*** UPDATE *** Halvorson has a new poll. From Anzalone-Liszt…
* Almost every likely primary voter (96%) can identify Jesse Jackson Junior, compared to only 56% who can identify Debbie Halvorson.
* Despite his 40-point advantage in name-identification, Jackson is polling under 50%, and only
leads by 13 points (48% Jackson / 35% Halvorson). […]
* A large segment of the African-American vote is in play; In spite of his 98% name ID with African-Americans, Jesse Jackson, Jr. only gets 63% of them in the current vote.
* Halvorson’s profile appeals to voters across racial lines. On the informed vote only 52% of her voters are white, while 40% are African-American, and 6% are Hispanic.
48 percent is awful close to 50 plus one. Just sayin…
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* The Progressive Change Campaign Committee released a poll of likely 10th CD Democratic primary voters with this gushing statement…
Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly want a bold progressive candidate who will fight for Wall Street accountability and government investment in jobs — not a conservative Democrat like Brad Schneider.
But the actual poll showed no overwhelming sentiment either way…
Q1 If the Democratic primary for Congress were held today, and the choices were Ilya Sheyman, Brad Schneider, John Tree, and Vivek Bavda, for whom would you vote?
Ilya Sheyman…………………………………………. 23%
Brad Schneider……………………………………….. 21%
John Tree……………………………………………….. 5%
Vivek Bavda…………………………………………….2%
Not sure………………………………………………….49%
The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4.8 percent, but using probability figuring, there’s a 67 percent probability that Sheyman is ahead. But that’s assuming this poll was conducted properly.
* A buddy of mine had an interesting take on the results, however. He believes the polling shows that the new Internet age means candidates are getting their message out before paid or even much earned media kicks in. Ten years ago, unknown candidates like these would barely register a blip on a polling radar screen. Now, half of the polling sample has made up its mind, even though none of the candidates have really spent a whole lot of money.
Illinois Democratic House hopeful John Tree, who jumped in the 10th district primary late–in November–raised $101,000 in the past quarter and on Tuesday released a list of endorsements.
Tree, an Air Force Reservist and businessman, faces major competition from Brad Schneider and Ilya Sheyman for the nomination in the north suburban district. The battle is over who will face freshman Rep. Bob Dold (R-Ill.) in November.
Tree has about $80,000 cash-on-hand and pumped about $20,000 of his money into the race. Schneider and Sheyman have not released numbers yet for the quarter ending last Dec. 31.
Tree announced backing from David Wilhelm, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and Pete Couvall, Former Vice-Chairman of the Lake County Democrats and Treasurer of the Waukegan Democrats; David McArtin - Grant Township Democratic Committeeman; Rob Nesvacil - President of Wheeling Township Democrats; Kathleen Sances - Wheeling Township Democratic Committeewoman and Sue Walton - Palatine Township Democratic Committeewoman.
* In other news, this Progress Illinois story reminded me to say something about the circuit court clerk’s race…
With two months to go, the race for Cook County Circuit Clerk is an odd mix of wonky discussion on how to run a judicial bureaucracy — and hyberbolic charges and counter-charges by 12-year incumbent Dorothy Brown and challenger Rick Munoz, who has been Chicago’s 22nd Ward alderman since 1993. […]
Munoz’s campaign is fixated on Brown’s mini-scandals, like the incumbent paying her “Director of Investigations” to moonlight as her chauffeur. […]
Brown’s campaign, meanwhile is focused on the “fraud” committed by the Munoz campaign – that the challenger filed 28,000 phony signatures in his petition for clerk. But while Brown continues to publicly make the charge, the formal objection to Munoz’s signatures was actually withdrawn from the Illinois Board of Elections.
* But Chicago Magazine’s exposé on politicians and gangsters took a look at Ald. Munoz…
Indeed, crime in the heart of Little Village is higher than in much of the rest of the city. Statistics show that the police district that covers 26th Street and nearby parts of the 22nd Ward had the ninth-highest number of reported violent crimes and the fifth-highest number of homicides citywide in 2011.
But, as Montes points out, there are no surveillance cameras posted anywhere along 26th Street. He blames Ricardo Muñoz, the alderman for Little Village. Muñoz, an admitted ex–gang member, has served on the City Council since 1993. Critics cite the alderman’s well-established ties to the Latino gangs in Little Village and also note that Muñoz’s father and his nephew were, on separate occasions, arrested for trafficking fake IDs.
Montes, a gadfly who frequently holds protests to focus attention on the lack of police blue-light cameras in his ward, suspects that Muñoz has intentionally kept cameras out to help protect the gangs—a position shared by several law enforcement sources and Muñoz’s various political opponents. (The installation of surveillance cameras at high-crime corners, according to police figures, has cut drug-related crime by 76 percent and so-called quality-of-life crime by 46 percent. Aldermen can pay for the cameras out of the more than $1 million in discretionary funds they receive every year. Muñoz, however, hasn’t bought one.)
Over time, Montes has gathered more than 1,500 signatures of Little Village residents and business owners supporting the installation of cameras on 26th Street. “My question is: Why does [Muñoz] oppose cameras so much?” Montes says. “Why would you oppose these cameras when you have high crime in your area? You’re the alderman. You see crime going on. Why does he ignore it?”
Muñoz says 26th Street doesn’t need taxpayer-funded cameras: “The business strip should fend for themselves.” He adds that cameras should mostly go around schools and parks. As for the suspicions that he deliberately keeps cameras out to protect street gangs, he answers, “I grew up in the neighborhood, and these statements are coming from haters. They’re just rumors.”
That campaign will get a whole lot nastier if Brown wants it to.
* Kinzinger urges GOP presidentials to “stop attacks on free market”
* Kinzinger, Manzullo dispute over voting records: “What the real issue here is, when you look at the difference between Congressman Manzullo and I, he’s going for his 21st year in Congress and I’m going for my third.”
* “The McLaughlin Group” is not something I generally watch, but my parents are devotees. The host, John McLaughlin, often asks his guests for predictions, and McLaughlin himself offered up this one this past weekend…
“Michelle Obama will run for the United States Senate in 2016 and she will be thereby kind of mimicking, if that’s not the right word [then] duplicating the career of Hillary Clinton,” McLaughlin said.
* AFSCME sent out a harsh press release yesterday morning…
Group meets in secret to plan closing state’s mental health, developmental centers
Meeting in secret with no public input or scrutiny, a small handful of top Quinn Administration officials and state legislators is plotting to close state-run psychiatric hospitals and residential centers for individuals with profound developmental disabilities.
The group’s first targets are the Jacksonville Developmental Center in central Illinois and the Tinley Park Mental Health Center in Chicago’s south suburbs, followed by others including the Choate Mental Health and Developmental Center in far southern Anna. […]
“I agreed to participate in what I believed would be an open and deliberative process to serve the best interests of the people of Illinois,” Rep. Watson said. “To the contrary, there was no public input and a predetermined conclusion. When I objected and sought to open up the process, I was strongly criticized by the Governor’s staff and denied access to basic documents. This is no way to govern or consider important issues for our state.”
Rather than considering how best to serve the individuals with acute mental illness or severe developmental disabilities who rely on state centers, the Quinn Administration utilized a crude multi-factor evaluation system designed to ensure facility closures. A draft matrix obtained by the union showed the administration simply ranked each psychiatric hospital and developmental center from 1 to 5 on various factors—many of them subjective and others irrelevant, such as when the facility was built—then added the numeric ranks together to yield a “score,” with the highest-scoring facilities targeted for immediate closure.
I asked for a copy of the “draft matrix” yesterday, but the union hasn’t provided it yet. Rep. Watson represents Jacksonville, which he and the union claim is on the chopping block. Watson also claims that the administration was looking for a rubber stamp, rather than collaboration. But not everyone agrees…
Sen. Heather Steans didn’t see it that way. The Chicago Democrat also served on the panel, and she said the goal was to figure out how to balance factors like quality of care, condition of the facility and economic impact when deciding what to close. Any proposal Quinn makes will get a thorough review, she said.
No facilities in Steans’ district are slated for closure, of course. But this is an interesting quote…
Watson said he believes the Jacksonville community is willing to work with the state to make the Jacksonville Developmental Center more cost effective.
“This town would do a lot to make it more efficient for the state to operate that facility, for the sake of those individuals who are there and for the impact it has on the community.”
Would Jacksonville pony up some cash or other subsidies to keep the facility in place?
Thrilled to open the new Riverfront Campus at WIU-Quad Cities
And the pic…
I studied the full-size version for several minutes and never did figure out what the purple thing is in that bearded dude’s hand.
…Adding… The governor’s press office has informed me that the item in question is a WIU Leatherneck purple tie. PQ loves purple ties, but his tend to be in Northwestern’s colors.
* John Garrido lost a Chicago aldermanic race by a tiny handful of votes. But he felt he’d been libeled during the campaign and he sued. His opponent, John Arena, was backed by several labor unions, and SEIU ran an ad blasting Garrido for taking cash “from a corporation making millions from the parking meter deal.”
In reality, Garrido received a contribution from a security firm that works with the parking meter company. So, Garrido sued. But his lawsuit was dismissed because of Illinois’ Citizen Participation Act. From the 2007 law’s preamble…
There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.
The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs.
Acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.
“The defendant doesn’t have to go to the effort of trying to prove, for instance, that their statements were true, or that for whatever other reason it wasn’t defamation. All the defendant has to do is show that the Citizen Participation Act applies,” [attorney Shari Albrecht] said.
And then the lawsuit is dismissed. Plus, the plaintiff - the person claiming to be defamed - has to pay a chunk of the other side’s legal bills.
And that’s what John Garrido is looking at, according to court documents: $13,164 for lawyers hired by the Chicago Federation of Labor, $34,149 for SEIU Illinois, $34,222 for UNITE HERE Local 1, $62,407 for Comcast and $17,097 for John Arena. All told, those defendants say Garrido owes them roughly $161,000.
In his order last week re-affirming his dismissal of the case, Cook County Judge Michael Panter wrote that courts shouldn’t “police the veracity of our political candidates’ campaign allegations.”
* Garrido plans to appeal. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled on one case involving Illinois’ anti SLAPP law a little over a year ago…
In a clash of an individual’s free speech rights versus the right of companies to bring grievances to court, the Illinois Supreme Court sided with the little guy.
John Walsh spoke out about problems with the developers of his Edgewater condo building at a public meeting in his Chicago alderman’s office in 2007. After the meeting, a reporter talked to Walsh, who is president of the building’s condo association, and quoted him in a story about condo horror stories. The developers later sued the 58-year-old accountant for defamation.
The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that Walsh’s speech was shielded from liability under 2007 legislation that protects a citizen’s constitutional rights to participate in government.
It’s a significant ruling because the court broadly interpreted what actions fall within the scope of immunity, said lawyers involved in the case. It’s the first time the court has analyzed immunity granted in the Illinois Citizen Participation Act.
* I won’t be joining this protest in deed, but I will be with them in spirit…
Wikipedia, the popular community-edited online encyclopedia, will black out its English-language site for 24 hours to seek support against proposed U.S. anti-piracy legislation that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said threatens the future of the Internet.
The U.S. service will be the highest profile name to join a growing campaign starting at midnight Eastern Time on Wednesday that will see it black out its page so that visitors will only see information about the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA).
The SOPA legislation under consideration in the House of Representatives aims to crack down on online sales of pirated American movies, music or other goods by forcing Internet companies to block access to foreign sites offering material that violates U.S. copyright laws. Supporters argue the bill is unlikely to have an impact on U.S.-based websites.
U.S. advertising networks could also be required to stop online ads, and search engines would be barred from directly linking to websites found to be distributing pirated goods.
Three key section of the existing legislation seem likely to remain, a person familiar with the matter says. They comprise provisions aimed at getting search engines to disable links to foreign infringing sites; provisions that cut off advertising services to those sites; and provisions that cut off payment processing.
But critical provisions that would require Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications and Comcast Corp. to cut off infringing sites through a technology known as DNS blocking are now likely to be eliminated.
Critics have said that such measures would only encourage people to navigate the web in riskier ways, with modified browsers or other tweaks that could lead to their Internet sessions getting hijacked by scammers.
Lawmakers had already been coming around to the realization they would have to hold back on the DNS-blocking provisions.
* And I couldn’t agree more with the American Society of News Editors’ stance against SOPA…
ASNE condemns content piracy, regardless of medium. Our members consider their content to be their most valuable asset. Unauthorized use of this content has always been a problem; its impact has increased with the advent of the Internet and has certainly undercut the financial well-being of America’s news media.
However, our members use the Internet in ways that could be construed to violate SOPA, and that’s not acceptable. Whether utilizing content contributed by third parties, stepping outside the direct reporter-source interaction to acquire and use information from websites around the world, or augmenting our stories through the use of multimedia previously unavailable to print-only publications, ASNE members continue to change the way news is presented. We fear that SOPA will restrict our ability to engage in these activities and stifle our capacity to innovate when we most sorely need the freedom to do so.
Ultimately, however, it is our longstanding dedication to First Amendment rights that drives our opposition to SOPA. Navigating the balance between copyright and free speech demands precision, and in seeking to protect the interests of copyright holders, the First Amendment requires Congress to adopt the least restrictive intrusion on speech available.
SOPA fails this test. It allows individual copyright owners to effect the most onerous restriction on speech — the prior restraint — with little evidence and virtually no due process, utilizing vague and overbroad definitions in the process. While it is directed at “rogue” websites engaged in widespread piracy, the law carries the real potential to go well beyond that narrow target. Without endorsing them, we note that more narrowly tailored alternatives have already been proposed. Their existence calls into question the constitutionality of SOPA and suggests that this Committee must reject H.R. 3261 and continue to examine other, less restrictive alternatives that strike the right balance between preventing piracy and protecting free expression.
We hope you agree. Again, we support your ultimate goal of eradicating online content piracy. We simply feel that this particular formulation is not precise enough to protect legitimate free speech rights. But we believe the right balance can be struck and are committed to working with your Committee and all Members of Congress to accomplish it.
* Considering that some of the most frequent copyright violators in Illinois are Republican Party officials, perhaps this whole thing needs to be rethought. What do I mean about these violators? Well, the Illinois Republican Party posts full-length news stories on its website every day. Here’s an example. The state Senate Republicans do the same.
* My syndicated newspaper column covers some familiar territory for blog readers, but not necessarily for newspaper readers…
As you probably know already, Moody’s recently slapped Illinois with its worst credit rating of any state in the nation.
But while Moody’s report was damaging, S&P’s rating was far more negative about the state’s future.
Moody’s cited Illinois’ “weak management practices” and failure to implement any pension funding reforms and pay off its mountain of overdue bills as the major top reasons for the downgrade. But Moody’s moved Illinois from a “negative” to a “stable” outlook for the future.
A spokesman for Gov. Pat Quinn was quoted as saying that the Moody’s rating drop was an “outlier” because ratings agencies S&P and Fitch had decided not to lower the state’s credit rating. On the surface, that’s true. Underneath, not so much.
Trouble is, S&P’s rating contained much harsher language about Illinois’ credit future, the agency put Illinois on negative watch and it issued a sternly worded warning that the state is in danger of another ratings downgrade this year.
S&P focused mainly on the state’s overdue bills, which the governor estimated at about $7 billion. Without “meaningful changes” to balance the books, S&P warned, “we could lower the rating this year.”
The ratings agency also strongly warned against Quinn’s plan to use long-term bonding to pay off overdue bills.
“The outlook also reflects … the possibility that (Illinois) might issue a significant amount of additional debt as part of its effort to address the large accumulated budget deficit,” was the blunt message from S&P, adding that a downgrade could be triggered if “debt levels increase significantly.” In other words, pay off the past-due bills but do so without issuing “significant” new debt.
The state budget office seemed to be taken somewhat aback by this warning, saying that its capital markets manager would have to work with S&P on the structure of a bond plan that would “minimize impact on near-term cash flow.”
But backloading the repayment of such a plan would also likely create howls of protest. In any case, getting a three-fifths vote in both legislative chambers has been next to impossible and is now probably even more unlikely with S&P’s latest pronouncement.
All three ratings agencies also highlighted Illinois’ pension problems. Moody’s focused on funding the pensions, not with the ever-rising costs of paying off old debts to the pension funds. S&P worried about deteriorating “pension funding levels.”
But even with the credit downgrade and all the warnings, Illinois still managed to get the lowest interest rate on its recent tax-exempt bond sale since at least 1976, according to the budget office, which couldn’t find any records before that date.
How the heck did that happen?
Essentially, the strong demand for municipal bonds. Billions of dollars in muni bonds are maturing around the country this month while few are being sold, and investors continue to look for safe havens.
And the current record low interest rates (the rate on the latest federal issue was 1.9 percent) combined to make the bond sale highly attractive to investors.
The predictions of gloom and doom simply didn’t materialize. Illinois beat every published expectation.
Yes, the interest rate probably would’ve been even lower if the state had a better credit rating. And the state’s interest rate was about triple the spread between top-rated bonds and what Illinois got when compared to the state’s last tax-exempt bond sale in 2009. And nobody would say that this sale signals any particular strength in our state’s financial situation.
But as Quinn’s capital markets director told reporters, it would be pretty tough for any state to get an interest rate much lower than the 3.9 percent Illinois got. So, while the Moody’s downgrade did have an impact, it wasn’t nearly as negative as you might’ve thought by reading the editorials and political press releases during the past couple of weeks.
What this state needs is a few more solutions and a whole lot less rhetoric.
* Meanwhile, Finke pulls out an interesting nugget…
The Illinois Policy Institute last week released a copy of its Repeal the Tax Hike Pledge that it wants lawmakers to sign. In it, a lawmaker pledges to vote to repeal the income tax hike and not impose additional taxes in its place.
The number of signees isn’t overwhelming. Only eight senators (all Republicans) and 18 representatives signed it. Rep. Jack Franks of Marengo was the only Democrat on the list. Another 30 candidates for the Legislature also signed the pledge. All of them are Republicans.
So what about Springfield’s lawmakers? A lot of their constituents have state jobs that sort of rely on the state having adequate income. Are they on the pledge?
Sen. Larry Bomke, R-Springfield, is not a signer. Bomke is not running for re-election, but he said signing pledges for interest groups isn’t the way he approaches the job.
“It’s a rarity that I sign any of those pledges,” Bomke said. “You can’t sign a pledge today and know what’s going to happen two or three years from now.”
Rep. Raymond Poe, R-Springfield, said he opposes the income tax, but isn’t signing the pledge, either.
“I haven’t signed any pledges in the last 10 years,” Poe said. “It locks you in (even) in the case of any emergency. If you sign one 20 years ago, they still have them.”
Rep. Rich Brauer, R-Petersburg, however, did sign the pledge, even though he said signing pledges isn’t something he likes to do.
There is no doubt the cost of providing pensions for Illinois’ public sector employees has become issue No. 1 when it comes to the state budget.
But with all members of the House and Senate up for reelection in 2012, don’t get too excited about any significant changes being made to the state’s pension systems.
Here are just a few reasons why this political hot potato may be too hot to handle:
A) Public sector employee unions are typically big-time campaign contributors to Illinois politicians.
B) Senate President John Cullerton’s legal staff has written up a pretty compelling analysis that says altering pension benefits of existing state workers is unconstitutional. He controls the majority in that chamber, which means its doubtful something like that would come up for a vote.
C) A plan to alter benefits for existing state workers would cost the state more next fiscal year than it would if lawmakers simply left the system alone.
* Related…
* Not a city employee, ex-Sen. Marovitz denied a city pension
* Editorial: Shifting tax burden not a pension fix
* Editorial: Where is the ’strong economy’ from tax hikes?
