* With Illinois’ new law requiring gubernatorial candidates to choose their running mates before they file their official candidacy forms, there’s been a lot of debate about what the candidates should do.
My pal Tom Bowen wrote this about the topic and I decided it was definitely worth posting here for your perusal…
There are time honored rules to picking a running mate that have been practiced at the presidential level for a generation. Illinois gubernatorial candidates would be wise to follow these rules while modifying them to fit this situation.
The first and most important thing to realize is that unlike the presidential process, Illinois gubernatorial candidates will now be picking running mates before any votes are cast. In the presidential process, the vice president is chosen after the Parties choose their nominees. That means there will be a limited field of candidates who will be a good fit to be a running mate, so you must start this process early and you must run background checks on your choices. If you don’t vet them, you run the risk of the media doing it for you.
On to the rules.
Rule #1: Do no harm.
The risk of choosing an aspiring, up and coming, or even experienced politician to join your team is that they will want to be the focus. Sarah Palin is a perfect example of what kind of harm a reckless running mate can do to your team.
Rule #2: If you weren’t running, who would you want to be your Governor?
This is a much more important rule at the presidential level due to the danger of the job, but if you were not governor, who would you want to have the job? Who shares your values or your philosophy on how government should be run? The job is to fill in for you if you cannot or will not continue, so choose someone you think would be a good governor.
Rule #3: Balance is overrated.
This rule compliments Rule #2, but it should be kept in mind that voters do not vote for the bottom of the ticket, they vote for the top. Brining key regional or political support to a ticket is a minimal asset at the end of the day. Do not be afraid to choose a running mate from a similar background or skill set and do not overemphasize “balance.” Fitting square pegs into round holes doesn’t work.
Rule #4: Raising money is a very, very important job.
If a running mate is not going to do call time, show up at fundraisers, or can bring a base of donors to your team, they are lacking a key asset. Money is necessary to be successful in politics, and every running mate has to pitch in.
Rule #5: Pick somebody who is willing to draw a sharp contrast.
The best running mates are the ones who are not afraid to level an attack at your opponents. The press has to cover what they say and it can force opponents to answer the points your campaign wants them to make. If a running mate is timid, tainted, or flat out unwilling to get down in the mud for your benefit, take a pass on them.
There are many more considerations that go into this process, but these five rules are above and beyond the most important to pay attention to. Since candidates will be choosing their running mates so early in this process, it gives voters a window into how they make decisions. Let’s see who chooses wisely.
* At one time, the Senate’s union-negotiated pension reform bill had 23 House co-sponsors. Three have dropped off since House Speaker Michael Madigan attached a hostile amendment which would strip the bill and replace it with Madigan’s pension reform bill.
The We Are One Illinois coalition has been circulating a letter demanding that Madigan call the Cullerton pension bill without an amendment. The co-signers…
llinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka (R)
Senator Melinda Bush (D-31)
Senator Jaqueline Collins (D-16)
Senator Bill Cunningham (D-18)
Senator Michael Frerichs (D-52)
Senator David Koehler (D-46)
Senator Toi Hutchinson (D-40)
Senator Mike Jacobs (D-36)
Senator Andy Manar (D-48)
Senator Sam McCann (R-50)
Senator Julie Morrison (D-29)
Senator Michael Noland (D-22)
Senator Steve Stadelman (D-34)
Senator Donne Trotter (D-17)
Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-14)
Rep. Jack Franks (D-63)
Rep. Robyn Gabel (D-18)
Rep. Jay Hoffman (D-113)
Rep. Robert Martwick (D-19)
Rep. Rita Mayfield (D-60)
Rep. Elgie Sims (D-34)
Rep. Mike Smiddy (D-71)
Rep. Michael Tryon (R-66)
Rep. Larry Walsh (D-86)
Rep. Chris Welch (D-7)
Rep. Ann Williams (D-11)
Rep. Sam Yingling (D-62)
Interesting that JBT heads the list. Big get for the unions.
But just 13 House members? Really? That’s just over half the original co-sponsor numbers. What the heck?
* There is one interesting angle here. Of those 13 House members, three (Franks, Gabel and Yingling) voted for Madigan’s bill. And since Madigan’s bill received just 62 votes, it might not have passed without them. Maybe they should’ve told their Speaker “No” the first time around.
Then again, Madigan would’ve probably just pulled a few more folks out of his back pocket to pass the thing.
…Adding… Rep. Raymond Poe (R-Springfield) just asked to be added to the list.
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation giving the state the nation’s strictest regulations for high-volume oil and gas drilling.
In a news release, Quinn’s office says the governor signed the bill Monday. Quinn says the law will “unlock the potential” for thousands of jobs in southern Illinois while protecting the environment.
Governor Pat Quinn today, avoiding the public spotlight, signed a new hydraulic fracturing bill into law.
Rather than hold a traditional bill signing ceremony and press conference to trumpet one his “top priorities”, Quinn signed the new bill in private and later issued a press release.
Sheesh. He could’ve traveled to southern Illinois and finally received decent media coverage.
* From the press release…
Under the new law, Illinois will become the first state in the nation in which hydraulic fracturing operators will be required to submit pre- and post-fracturing chemical disclosures to the state. Additionally, Illinois will become the only state in the nation to require pre- and post-fracturing water testing. Operators will be required to provide a baseline water test prior to the act of hydraulic fracturing and then tests six months, 18 months and 30 months after operations have concluded. Illinois will also require the storage of fluid in above-ground closed tanks, rather than traditional pits.
The law includes a mandatory 30-day public comment period, a public hearing opportunity and a 15-day follow-up public comment period on new permit applications. The state will consider all submitted written comments and testimony from public hearings when making its decision to approve or deny the application.
“This is a monumental achievement for economic development and jobs in Illinois,” said Mark Denzler, vice president and chief operating officer of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association. “Hydraulic fracturing will create good-paying jobs and reduce our reliance on foreign source of oil.”
The legislation was supported by numerous environmental advocacy groups, including the Sierra Club Illinois, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council and Illinois Environmental Council.
The IMA kept the talks on an even keel and the environmental groups were real heroes here. They insisted on a tough law and fought off their left flanks as the more radical local startup groups screamed bloody murder. Good for them. Good for all of us. Let’s get some jobs.
Will County Executive Larry Walsh is hosting his first fundraiser for Gov. Pat Quinn at the IBEW union hall on Monday. But the event doesn’t mean Walsh is endorsing his fellow Democrat’s re-election before all gubernatorial candidates are announced, including potential candidate Bill Daley.
“It means that I feel that Pat Quinn’s administration has been very, very supportive of what is going on here in Will County,” Walsh said. “I’m hosting a fundraiser to say thank you to the governor.”
Madigan wants “a second and final thirty-day extension” to file a possible appeal of the appellate court’s ruling that Illinois’ total ban on public carrying of loaded firearms is unconstitutional. Currently, Madigan has until June 24th to file her writ of certiorari.
The motion follows the recent granting by the appellate court of AG Madigan’s request that its June 9th deadline be extended for 30 days. So, Madigan wants the extension with the US Supremes until after the appellate clock stops ticking. It also keeps her out of the debate, of course.
Good cause exists for this application. The undersigned counsel, who has principal responsibility for the certiorari petition in this case, serves as the Solicitor General in the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. Counsel filed the opening brief on June 3, 2013 as counsel of record for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and other petitioners in Madigan v. Levin (U.S. 12-872). In addition, counsel’s supervisory responsibilities over the Civil and Criminal Appeals Divisions of the Attorney General’s Office-including editing and revising briefs and preparing attorneys for oral argument-have occupied a substantial amount of time in May and the first two weeks of June, 2013.
Wherefore petitioners respectfully request that an order be entered extending the time to file a certiorari petition to and including July 24, 2013.
* There’s lots more to the pension reform impasse than what the AP is telling you, but this’ll do for starters…
Cullerton is known for trying to work collaboratively with interest groups and fellow senators, both Democrat and Republican. Madigan is known for his strategic control of House matters through his years of experience and formidable fundraising powers. Currently, he controls more than $2 million he can distribute, while Cullerton oversees funds with about $100,000 in them.
Cullerton “likes to bring parties to an agreement,” said Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat. His pension proposal “is the first and only time (state) workers impacted have agreed to meaningful pension reform. … He attempts to simultaneously do what’s in the best interest of the state and what the caucus would like to do.”
Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat and assistant majority leader under Madigan, argued that part of the problem is senators under Cullerton who bristle over the speaker’s influence. Cullerton has to deal with members that “go overboard not doing things the speaker’s way,” Lang said. “The senate wants to have its own identity.”
But Kent Redfield, a former House staffer who teaches political science at the University of Illinois Springfield, believes Cullerton has more to gain from taking a tough stand at an opportune moment. He says Cullerton realizes his pension proposal likely has the most support in the legislature, and that’s why he’s still pushing it regardless of how he and Madigan have worked together in the past.
“Part of it is redefining those roles … Cullerton does not want to be in a position of weakness,” Redfield said. “He’s got an agreement with the unions that puts him in a pretty strong position.”
Madigan has indicated he doesn’t believe the Senate plan saves enough money and that approving it will result in the state having to address pension reform again.
“What’s been frustrating is (determining) what is the dollar amount they think needs to be saved,” [Sen. John Sullivan] said of the House. “What is the money (Madigan) wants to get to? Once we have that number, let’s see … what we can negotiate.”
Earlier this week, Quinn proposed a compromise that would combine Madigan and Cullerton’s plans: Madigan’s legislation would be “Plan A” and Cullerton’s plan - with more cost savings worked in - would be the backup if the courts threw out the other.
Madigan quickly showed his disapproval, filing an amendment on Cullerton’s bill that would essentially gut it and replace it with his own measure. Asked Friday whether his digging in could be perceived standing in the way of compromise, Madigan said he believes he’s doing what voters want him to do.
“I don’t think you send people to the Legislature to be weak,” he said. “I think you send them down there to be strong, to understand the issues, work on bills, advocate for positions and advance those positions through the Legislature. That’s what you want.”
* That’s probably why there’s no comment from Madigan’s office on this…
Legislation resolving the state’s public university and community college pension debt could to be used as a model for reforming all state public employee pension plans and eliminating a nearly $100 billion debt over 30 years, SIU President Glenn Poshard said Saturday.
Poshard said Senate President John Cullerton would present a plan from the state’s public university presidents, created by the Institute for Government & Public Affairs at the University of Illinois, to the Senate executive committee Tuesday. It would then be heard by the full Senate in Wednesday’s General Assembly special session and, if passed, move to the House.
Poshard was optimistic about the potential of the plan passing the House and being signed by Gov. Pat Quinn. It grew out of an early meeting with Quinn, has the support of Cullerton and addresses key pension reform objectives of House Speaker Mike Madigan, Poshard said.
* And once again, you should really take some time today and listen carefully to Madigan’s and Cullerton’s comments during Friday’s pension reform press conference. You’ll learn a whole lot more than you would by just reading the news stories…
* Universities offer partial Illinois pension fix: Although Cullerton supports the idea, Phelon said it’s uncertain whether he’ll sponsor the legislation. A version was introduced May 31 by Democratic Sen. Michael Hastings of Orland Hills.
* Rival pension plans likely to bog down special session: Republicans voting “no” on the Madigan plan, also known as Senate Bill 1, include state Sens. Jason Barickman of Bloomington, Tim Bivins of Dixon, Dave Luechtefeld of Okawville, Dale Righter of Mattoon and Chapin Rose of Mahomet.
* Editorial: Sen. McCarter, Sen. McCann, why are you crushing Illinois?
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Daley took Governor Pat Quinn to task for failed leadership, offering a three-point plan to break the impasse on pension reform.
“Governor Quinn has failed to lead, maintaining over and over again that it’s the legislature’s job to pass the bill, and his job to merely sign it. That’s not leadership, that’s a cop out,” said Daley, who added “his failure to get a legal opinion from the Attorney General Madigan has made the impasse even worse.”
Daley noted that Quinn’s vacillations have exacerbated the differences between the Senate and House. “Quinn was for his own plan, but never made the case for it. Squeezy the python never squeezed anyone. He was for the Cullerton plan, then he was for the Madigan plan. Then last Monday, almost comically, he said he wanted to pass both plans at the same time. Friday he asked for a conference committee, which is nothing more than passing the buck. No wonder the legislature is conflicted,” said Daley.
Daley maintains that the plan backed by House Speaker Mike Madigan, now known as Senate Bill 1, is the only solution that truly addresses the pension shortfall. Senate Bill 1 is projected to trim $21 billion off the nearly $100 billion unfunded pension liability the state now faces and reduce overall state payments to the pension systems by $187 billion over the next 30 years — about three times the savings of Senate Bill 2404, the plan backed by Senate President John Cullerton and a coalition of labor unions.
Daley said if he were governor right now, he would have driven three important principles to shape the debate and forge a consensus around Senate Bill 1:
Step One - Make a Clear Case That Senate Bill 1 is Constitutional
Daley observed that one of the biggest issues separating the House and Senate is the dispute over the constitutionality of both bills. Senate President John Cullerton’s staff has argued that only Senate Bill 2404 is constitutional. Daley says other lawyers differ, including the law firm of Sidley Austin, in a detailed opinion prepared for the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club.
The opinion explains that if the State has the right to lay off workers or cut salaries in times of budget crisis, then it also has the right to take the much less drastic step of reducing pension benefits earned in the future.
“Senate Bill 2404 was written with good intentions, but it is simply another band-aid that will not solve the problem. There is a solid legal case that it is no more constitutional than Senate Bill 1. The only real difference is that Senate Bill 1 goes three times farther toward solving the problem,” said Daley.
Daley criticized both Governor Quinn and Attorney General Lisa Madigan for failing to make the legal argument that Senate Bill 1 is every bit as constitutional as Senate Bill 2404.
“Governor Quinn failed to make the case that Senate Bill 1 is constitutional. Attorney General Madigan, who has publicly opined on other constitutional issues she may later defend, has refused to say anything other than she would support doing something. That’s not leadership,” said Daley.
“If Attorney General Madigan can’t provide a full legal opinion without a formal request from the Governor or the legislature, they should make that request right away,” added Daley.
Step Two – Veto any pension plan except Senate Bill 1
Daley said the Governor should long ago have made it clear that he would veto any pension plan that did not achieve the same amount of savings as Senate Bill 1. “If the Governor had said from the beginning that Senate Bill 2404 was dead on arrival and actually stuck by his words for a change, Senate Bill 1 would have gotten a lot more than 16 votes,” said Daley.
Were he the governor, Daley would have made the veto threat early and often. “I saw first hand how Presidents Clinton and Obama used the veto threat to move Congress toward the right action. That’s what I would have done here,” said Daley, referring to his service as Secretary of Commerce under President Clinton and Chief Staff to President Obama.
Step Three – Give Senators something to vote FOR.
According to the Civic Federation’s February 25, 2013 budget report, pension contributions could decline by $2.5 billion in FY2018 if the state enacted comprehensive pension reform similar to Senate Bill 1.
Daley suggested that a portion of the $2.5 billion in reduced pension contributions – perhaps as much as 51% — could be earmarked for public education as a related piece of legislation connected to the passage of Senate Bill 1.
“The most important job the state does is finance the education of our children. It is the key to economic growth and it is key to making sure every child has a shot at a brighter future,” said Daley, who added, “Senate Bill 1 is a very tough vote. To me, you have to give these senators something to be for, and dedicating over $1 billion in freed revenue to educate our kids is something both Democrats and Republicans can get behind.”
I boldened the Lisa Madigan stuff. The rest is in the original.
* Equality Illinois PAC’s account balance at the end of March was just $17K. So, they have a very long way to go before they can bank this kind of dough. But there is big money out there, as the spring session demonstrated.
From a press release…
Equality Illinois, the state’s oldest and largest LGBT advocacy organization, today announced a half-million dollar FIGHT BACK FOR MARRIAGE campaign leading to the 2014 election.
Equality Illinois (EQIL) has pledged to use half of the fund toward an educational campaign focusing on the collar counties, Downstate areas and Chicago neighborhoods where there is a need to strengthen the advocacy for and defense of the freedom to marry.
The organization’s political action arm, Equality Illinois Political Action Committee (EQIL PAC), has pledged the other $250,000 in order to match marriage opponents dollar-for-dollar on the political battlefield. […]
The $250,000 political action piece of the Fight Back for Marriage plan, though formidable, is a target set to directly confront an opponent of LGBT equality, the so-called National Organization for Marriage, which threatened to spend $250,000 to oppose particularly Republican legislators who supported the freedom to marry.
“We will defend those candidates who demonstrate a dedication to the freedom to marry through their votes and campaign commitments,” said Jeremy Gottschalk, chair of Equality Illinois PAC board of directors. “And we will ensure that those who stand in the way of marriage equality are held accountable to the voters. No opponents of marriage equality can be sure that their re-election campaigns will be easy next year.”
EQIL PAC has a strong history of success at the ballot box and expects to be even more successful in 2014 in helping our allies and confronting our opponents. In last November’s election, 69 of Equality Illinois PAC’s 82 endorsed candidates were elected (including 26 of the 39 EQIL PAC-endorsed candidates involved in competitive races), for a success rate of 84%.
Equality Illinois’ reinvigorated educational and advocacy campaign for the marriage bill, funded by the other $250,000 of the Fight Back for Marriage campaign, is already underway after the Illinois House of Representatives failed in its responsibility to vote and pass the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act by May 31.
Once the law passes, as we are confident it will, we must educate public officials and the public how the law works and defend it against expected attacks. There are likely to be attempts to weaken it or challenge it in the courts. Already, there is legislation introduced for a state constitutional amendment seeking to define marriage only as between a man and a woman.
Also, the educational arm will inform voters about the incumbents and their challengers. “We will be aggressive in both arms of the Fight Back for Marriage campaign,” Cherkasov said. “We have to let the voters know which lawmakers support the right of all couples to marry and raise families under the recognition and protection of marriage and which senators and representatives stand on the wrong side of history.”
Nervous House members will probably be grateful for this PAC if, indeed, the group can raise the money.
However, taking credit for all those wins just isn’t credible. The PAC spent just $53K in the last quarter of 2012 and only $1,200 in the quarter before that.
* Meanwhile, if you’re gonna protest the Speaker, maybe you should get yourself better organized…
About 18 people attended the rainy mid-day protest, held outside of Madigan’s district office in Chicago’s West Lawn neighborhood. The demonstration intended put heat on Madigan after the Illinois House adjourned without voting on a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage May 31. LGBTs have partially blamed Madigan, stating that the speaker did not use his power to influence support within the Democratic Caucus.
“The notion that state reps. vote their conscience is as ludicrous as saying most Chicago aldermen vote their conscience,” said Gay Liberation Network co-founder Andy Thayer. “Mike Madigan put his finger to the wind and decided that the anti-gay bigots are more mobilized.”
That’s truly pathetic.
*** UPDATE *** From Mitch Locin at Equality Illinois…
Hi Rich,
Thank you for the coverage of our release in your blog this morning. I wanted to add two things for your consideration:
1. Juxtaposing our news item with the one on the protest in front of the office of Speaker Madigan may have left an impression that Equality Illinois was connected to that protest. The protest was not Equality Illinois’ event.
2. Just to put the $250,000 PAC goal in some greater perspective, Equality Illinois PAC directly contributed $127,000 during the 2012 election cycle in addition to other expenditures, which was an increase of over 100% from the previous cycle. Our goal, therefore, is to double our capacity yet again in the 2014 cycle and have an even greater impact.
In a sign that some truly awful publicity for her father may be hurting her possible gubernatorial bid, Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s poll numbers have plunged in the past several months. And Bill Daley has considerably improved his standing since he announced his candidacy.
Back in January, a We Ask America poll had Ms. Madigan leading Gov. Pat Quinn in a Democratic primary by 25 points, 51 percent to 26 percent. A Public Policy Polling survey taken last November had Madigan stomping Quinn by a whopping 44 points, 64-20.
But the newest Capitol Fax/We Ask America poll, taken June 13th, had Madigan’s lead over Quinn at 11 points, 44-33. That’s still a big lead, but not nearly the cremation many were expecting.
The poll of 1,322 likely Democratic primary voters had a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percent. About 22 percent were cell phone users.
It’s possible that House Speaker Michael Madigan may be at least somewhat responsible for his daughter’s slide. He’s clearly wearing the jacket for the General Assembly’s failure to pass pension reform because he’s refusing to compromise with Gov. Quinn and Senate President John Cullerton. That stalemate has resulted in some spectacularly bad publicity for the elder Madigan.
“It’s easy to look at these results and assume the governor could easily lose in a primary,” said pollster Gregg Durham last week. “But Mr. Quinn would be a more formidable opponent than these numbers indicate. He’s not only had a history of coming back from atrocious poll numbers, you and I know that any challenger in a gubernatorial campaign is going to face an extra level of scrutiny that won’t be easy to overcome. You never know what that white-hot spotlight will show. Quinn can’t legitimately be viewed as ‘The Walking Dead.’ He’s more a ‘Person of Interest.’”
Madigan’s lead among Democratic women has dropped considerably since January’s We Ask America poll was taken. Back then, she was ahead of Quinn 53-22. This time around, she’s ahead 47-29. And Quinn has overtaken Madigan among men. Madigan led with men 46-30 in January, but now Quinn is ahead 41-38.
Her lead over Quinn in Chicago has also dropped. January’s lead was 46-30, but now it’s 39-35. She has also lost major ground in suburban Cook County and Quinn has overtaken her in the collar counties. But Downstate is still a huge problem for Quinn, where he trails 56-22, about the same as January’s poll.
Bill Daley announced his candidacy last week, and his poll numbers have improved, at least in the We Ask America poll. In January, Daley trailed Gov. Quinn in a one-on-one matchup by five points, 38-33. But now he leads Quinn 38-37. However, Public Policy Polling had Daley leading Quinn 37-34 last November.
In January, the polling showed Daley trailing the governor by a couple of points among women. He now leads by about 2 points. Daley, the son of a former Chicago mayor and brother of another, was losing among men by eight points back in January, but is now tied.
As expected, Quinn is leading Daley among likely black voters 42-34 and 40-23 among Latinos. Daley does lead Quinn 41-35 among whites, however.
Daley trails Quinn in Downstate counties 38-33, and in Chicago 39-37. But he leads the governor in suburban Cook 46-36 and in the collars 39-37.
Daley has also improved his numbers in a three-way contest against Madigan and Quinn, while Madigan has lost some ground.
Back in January, We Ask America had Madigan at 37 percent to Quinn’s 20 percent and Daley’s 15 percent. The newest poll, however, has Madigan at 32 percent to 21 for Quinn and 22 for Daley.
Daley and Quinn have both upped their numbers among Democratic men. Back in January, it was 34 for Madigan, 24 for Quinn and 18 for Daley. Now it’s 28-27-24, respectively. Daley has also improved among Democratic women. In January, Madigan led Quinn and Daley 38-17-13, now it’s 35-18-20.
Madigan leads Quinn and Daley in Chicago 30-25-18, which is below her 35-18-18 advantage in January. Madigan actually trails Daley by a point in suburban Cook and in the collars, but leads big Downstate.
Attorney General Madigan is still the favorite, but this may not be a coronation if she decides to run.
* Issuing an official opinion about whether the House and Senate’s pension reform proposals are constitutional would pose a conflict of interest for the AG because she’d be defending whatever passed. But such legal guidance would obviously be of enormous help to the General Assembly as it thrashes out the contentious issue going forward.
* The Question: Should Attorney General Lisa Madigan issue a formal opinion on the constitutionality of both proposed pension reform plans? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
With college tuition on the rise, Illinois House Republicans say they want to give working class families a break, and an incentive to go to a school in state.
Rep. Adam Brown graduated from the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign in 2007, but in that short time, tuition’s steadily gone up.
BROWN: “The average cost for tuition, fees and books right now – $26,000 and ten years ago that was $19,000.”
* OK, so I went to the CPI inflation calculator page and plugged in the numbers for 2003 and 2013 and found this…
So, the school cost numbers ain’t a whole lot higher than inflation.
* Word from today’s leaders meeting in Chicago is that after some vitriol between himself and House Speaker Michael Madigan, Gov. Pat Quinn has decided to back away from his stance that the “A-B” combo pension reform proposal should be passed. The proposal would’ve combined Madigan’s pension bill with Senate President John Cullerton’s bill, with Madigan’s taking effect first. If it was struck down, Cullerton’s bill would then become law.
“I kind of felt like I was witnessing an awkward family fight,” Senate Republican Christine Radogno of Lemont said following Friday’s closed-door meeting. “It was uncomfortable and it’s clear there is not even close to an agreement between the Democrats. It was them sort of dancing around the problems they have.”
House Bill 1907, sponsored by Sen. Tony Munoz (D-Chicago) and Rep. Mike Zalewski (D-Chicago), is modeled off the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act that was designed to help law enforcement fight organized crime by treating criminal acts committed by members of the group as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. Under this legislation, law enforcement in Illinois can more effectively target the street gang leaders who order and benefit from the crimes of lower-ranking members.
The bill is here. It had bipartisan support in both chambers. Just one Senator voted against it (Annazette Collins) and 18 House members did so (mostly members of the Black Caucus, but also some white liberals).
* The new law is apparently working well so far. Tribune…
Local authorities, armed with a powerful new state RICO law, said they charged dozens of leaders and senior members of a notorious West Side street gang with operating a violent, $11 million-a-year heroin and cocaine operation responsible for seven murders and untold violence since the 1990s.
In unsealing the charges Thursday, authorities said the probe began after a victim of violence at the hands of the Black Souls gang was shot to death in a daylight street attack in October after he had refused a bribe of $3,000 to drop charges against several gang leaders for his earlier beating and robbery.
Before sunrise Thursday, Chicago police gang specialists and FBI agents armed with “no knock” search warrants fanned out across the Chicago area to arrest suspects accused of being high-ranking leaders of the gang as well as “top runners” and supervisors who authorities said control its street operations. In all, 23 people were charged with racketeering conspiracy and criminal drug conspiracy in the first use of the tough new state RICO law, while 18 others face more traditional drug or weapons charges, authorities said. […]
The Black Souls operation is centered near West Madison Street and Pulaski Road and is thought to have a half-dozen factions with about 750 members, a fraction of the size of gangs like the Latin Kings or Gangster Disciples, according to law enforcement.
“They’re small, violent and hard to infiltrate,” said Chicago police Sgt. Charles Daly, who helped run the investigation. “Tightknit. We never had any luck infiltrating this group.”
The leaders of a West Side gang accused of ruthlessly enforcing a “no-snitch” code — and shooting two Chicago Police officers in the head in 2011 — were arrested Thursday in a massive roundup under a new state racketeering law.
The Black Souls are accused of at least six murders, kidnapping, gunrunning and drug dealing. The investigation, called Operation .40-Cal, began in October after the gang allegedly killed a West Side man who complained to the police about illegal activity on his block.
Authorities said the gang is among the most difficult to infiltrate because the leaders use murders to keep witnesses from testifying against them.
Secret recordings earlier this year captured reputed Black Souls chief Cornel “Corn” Dawson saying he held meetings with younger Black Souls to warn them not to cooperate with the police — and was worried he was under investigation for murder, prosecutors said.
“These leaders tend to insulate themselves and this law helps law enforcement penetrate the veil of secrecy,” Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said.
Dawson, 38, was among the 41 reputed members charged in Operation .40-Cal. […]
The racketeering case accuses the gang of at least six killings dating to 1999. The June 24, 2002, murder of Charles Watson highlights the gang’s use of violence as a disciplinary tool, authorities said.
* Phil Kadner follows up on his story about the disappearing House staffer during the gaming negotiations. Let’s go back a few days to Kadner’s earlier column…
[Gov. Pat Quinn] said he had reached agreement on “language I could live with” with state Rep. Robert Rita (D-Blue Island), the chief House sponsor, and it was given to the Legislative Reference Bureau to be placed in the bill.
But the night the legislation was supposed to be written, Quinn said, “the LRB staff member got himself lost.” I asked what that meant, and Quinn repeated, “he got lost. He couldn’t be found.”
* But Rep. Bob Rita, the gaming bill’s sponsor, tells Kadner that the governor’s story isn’t true (although I heard the same thing the night session ended). The governor’s office stands behind the contention that the staffer went missing with the negotiated gaming language…
During an interview this week in his Blue Island office, Rita rejected as “ridiculous” a contention by Gov. Pat Quinn that the gambling bill, which would’ve created five casinos, was not called for a vote this spring because a House staff member who was writing the bill “got lost.” But Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson called me to say that despite what Rita says, the House staffer “did get lost.”
Rita said there were several staff members working on the bill, that his amendment to a Senate gambling bill was eventually filed, but that he decided not to call the measure for a vote because “I still had a lot of questions I wanted answered.”
Rita said Quinn telephoned several times in the final days of the session, urging him to call the measure for a vote.
That seems strange because Quinn opposed gambling expansion in each of the past two years — once by simply letting it be known he didn’t like the bill and the second time by actually vetoing the measure.
In addition, the governor told me (and Rita) that he would not have signed a gambling expansion bill unless the General Assembly passed pension reform, which it did not.
I think Quinn believed he was gonna get a pension deal by the end of session. He also wanted to get Mayor Emanuel off his back.
* Earlier this week, the Chicago Tribune editorial board surmised that the pension reform impasse was really just a ruse…
And there’s plenty of suspicion that good buddies Madigan and Cullerton aren’t really at impasse, they’re just gaming everybody; failure, for some reason, suits them.
At a meeting this week, House Speaker Michael Madigan urged Gov. Pat Quinn to help get pension reform out of the Senate.
“Let me say it again: The best pension bill passed so far, and the one that does the most cost savings, is the House bill, and that’s in the Senate,” Madigan said. “The governor ought to work to get that passed.”
Mind if we make a suggestion, governor, on an arm that merits twisting?
Madigan’s more aggressive pension bill — the one that would help dig Illinois out of debt more quickly — went down in flames. So-called tea party conservatives who preach fiscal responsibility voted against it, along with Democrats who allowed the pension system to blow out of control in the first place. Senators in both categories should have been on board.
So let’s review the roll call. Over the next few days, leading up to the Wednesday special session called by Quinn, we’ll write about some of the rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans who ignore their constituents’ best interests and stand in the way of saving Illinois.
Well, hmm. Lemme see. If the pension reform stalement is a ruse concocted by the leaders, then trashing the Madigan bill opponents ain’t really gonna help, is it?
Several months ago, I offered Bill Daley some unsolicited advice.
Before you decide whether to run for governor, I suggested to Daley during a phone call, you should take some time off and drive around Illinois.
Cairo, in deep Southern Illinois, is 370 miles from Chicago. It’s a whole other world down there.
Maybe take a day and head out to Quincy, which is about as far west as you can go in Illinois and where the economy usually thrives even during recessions. Quincy is almost 100 miles closer to Kansas City than it is to Chicago.
Tuscola is a 150-mile straight shot down Interstate 57, where Amish restaurants and shops abound. Peoria is home to thousands of Lebanese-Americans whose ancestors arrived 100 years ago.
This is a great big beautiful and weirdly diverse state, I told Daley. You gotta go see it and at least try to get your mind around it before you decide you really want to govern it.
Daley wasn’t interested. The votes needed to win the Democratic primary are in Cook County, and that was where he was staying.
Not long after I talked to Daley, another wealthy Chicagoan began traveling the state on a “listening tour.” Republican Bruce Rauner probably talked a lot more than he listened, but he spent over two months on the road and visited 50 Illinois towns and cities.
I give Rauner a lot of credit for his tour. Yeah, it was something of a stunt, but at least he tried to see a good chunk of Illinois.
Rauner and Daley both jumped into the governor’s race this week. They travel in many of the same circles, so their lists of fantastically monied campaign donors probably overlap more than not. Rauner criticized Daley this week for being part of “the same old political dynasties,” but Rauner gave $200,000 to the campaign fund of Daley’s brother Rich.
Both men have long enjoyed lives of privilege. Rauner made himself super rich with an investment company and helped make Rahm Emanuel a member of the “one percent” with some sweet deals. He has a house in Winnetka, a nice spread in Montana and some expensive Chicago condos. He used one of those condos to establish city residency for himself (but not his spouse) and then allegedly took advantage of his political connections to get his kid into the ultra-exclusive Walter Payton College Prep.
But that bit of alleged graft would be small potatoes for a guy like Daley, the son of a mayor and brother of another, who has had careers in big-time banking, AT&T and the White House under two presidents.
Their messages are remarkably similar. Despite a lack of hands-on experience dealing with state government, they’re both completely confident that their record of lifetime success, superior abilities and exceptional intellects will allow them to forcibly drag Illinois kicking and screaming toward prosperity.
They are, in sum, the embodiment of entitled, wealthy white male rage. Daley freely admits that his anger pushed him into the campaign against Gov. Pat Quinn. It’s a decision he may live to regret.
Rauner obviously has a better chance of winning with an angry rich white guy message in a Republican primary than Daley does in a Democratic contest, even against the unpopular Quinn. And thanks to his “listening tour,” at least Rauner now knows what downtown Effingham looks like. Daley might not be able to find it on a map.
Many Illinois Democrats in Congress are staying far away from the gubernatorial primary, according to a survey of the delegation by CQ Roll Call. The primary could prove pivotal for some Illinois Democrats, whose political future will depend on the gubernatorial race topping their ticket.
But even members who know both candidates, such as freshman Rep. Tammy Duckworth, declined to choose sides. […]
Other Democrats echoed Duckworth, including Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin. His spokesman said via email that Durbin “isn’t going to get involved in the primary.”
Rep. Danny K. Davis proved the exception by saying he backed Quinn for re-election. But many of his Illinois colleagues said they were staying out of the race for now.
Freshman Rep. Bill Enyart “doesn’t plan on any primary endorsements in the foreseeable future,” according to his spokesman. The same goes for Reps. Bill Foster and Cheri Bustos, both of whom could face tough races in 2014.
“Congresswoman Bustos plans to stay neutral in the primary and has exactly one focus right now and that is serving the people of Illinois’ 17th congressional District,” Bustos spokesman Colin Milligan said.
Three more Illinois Democrats declined to comment about the race through their respective offices: Reps. Bobby L. Rush, Robin Kelly and Mike Quigley.
