IT IS ORDERED that the emergency motion for supervisory order is denied. On the Court’s own motion, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 384, Darren Bailey v. Governor Jay Robert Pritzker, in his official capacity, Clay County No. 20 CH 6, is transferred to the Circuit Court of Sangamon County and consolidated with Riley Craig et al. v. Governor Jay Robert Pritzker, etc., Sangamon County No. 20 MR 589.
What this means is, the Supreme Court punted on deciding the issue at hand and moved the case to Sangamon County, where the governor has previously prevailed.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 384, James Mainer et al., etc. v. Illinois Department of Public Health et al., etc., Clay County No. 20 CH 13, is transferred to the Circuit Court of Sangamon County and consolidated with Governor J.B. Pritzker, etc., et al. v. Board of Education of Hutsonville CUSD #1 et al., etc., Sangamon County No. 20 MR 557.
By their own admission, the plaintiffs’ lawyers filed this lawsuit for political purposes. I have occasionally made job recommendations for good people seeking jobs, believing that the applicant could and would do successful work. That is commonplace in all industries. Sometimes the applicant is hired, and sometimes the applicant is not hired. The decision is the employer’s and I do not act differently either way. And I have not, and would not, make a job recommendation believing that the applicant wouldn’t be asked to perform work by their employer.
The notion that the passage of two consequential pieces of energy legislation were tied to the hiring or retention of a few individuals is seriously mistaken. Those bills had broad support—from Democrats and Republicans; from the other legislative leaders, sponsors, and individual legislators; and from labor supporters, consumer advocates, and environmentalists. The bills couldn’t have passed otherwise, and they were the product of years of deliberation, negotiations, and consensus building. Nothing I or my staff did in the course of those bills was influenced by a company’s decision to hire or retain a person, nor did I ever suggest that such a decision could influence me.
I have never made a legislative decision with improper motives. We intend to defeat this transparently political lawsuit, which is wrong on both the facts and the law.
There have always been differences within the Democratic party. I have devoted my entire career to working with all Democrats in Illinois. I will continue to do that, especially as we face defeating Donald Trump, who has a track record of sowing division and suppressing minority voices. As Trump ends the Census count early, ensuring all of our communities are fairly and fully represented has been and will continue to be a main priority of mine as the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois.
Discuss.
*** UPDATE *** One more MJM statement…
Vice President Biden has made an excellent choice in selecting Senator Kamala Harris as our next vice president of the United States. Senator Harris has an impressive legislative and legal background that will help guide our country out of one of our darkest periods. Senator Harris has compassion and strength and is the right woman for the job.
Overheard in the hallway as lawmakers walk into the JCAR meeting, Senator Bill Cunningham assures @GovPritzker’s lawyer Ann Spillane there will be “no surprises.” Cunningham apparently expects the fines for businesses who defy Pritzker’s mask mandate to pass. pic.twitter.com/AIIVlDSolX
…Adding… The afore-mentioned DCEO emergency rule on distribution of federal aid to local governments has been approved.
…Adding… Press release…
Illinois Municipal League Executive Director Brad Cole issued the following statement regarding the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules’ approval of guidelines for the distribution of local funding from the federal CARES Act:
“Today’s rulemaking by the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) and the Administration is both unfortunate and untimely. It is unfortunate that the state has chosen its own bureaucracy over the betterment of its communities, by disallowing local governments from using their allotted CARES Act funds in full compliance with federal guidelines. And it is untimely in that the state continues to withhold millions of federal dollars that were intended to aid suffering local governments, aid that was enacted by Congress and the President almost five months ago, on March 27.”
The core disagreement was that the “suffering local governments” wanted near carte blanche authority to distribute federal money to local businesses. If the locals had violated federal rules, state taxpayers would be held responsible.
*** UPDATE 1 *** JCAR took up a motion to oppose and suspend the IDPH emergency rule. That motion required a majority of 8 votes. It failed 6-5. The rule stands.
…Adding… IRMA isn’t pleased…
The Illinois Retail Merchants Association (IRMA) has released the following statement after the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules failed to stop Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s proposal to fine retailers for the failure of individuals to wear face coverings as required by the state:
“We are disappointed the administrative rule was not stopped. Contrary to the false narrative peddled by the administration in recent days, retailers have never been against masks. In fact, the retail industry helped develop many of the safety guidelines put in place by the state, including the use of face coverings in public,” said Rob Karr, president and CEO of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association.
“Instead of cooperation and collaboration, the Administration chose politics and confrontation in developing this rule, abandoning the partnership with retailers that has helped guide our state through this pandemic. While the Administration preaches the importance of individuals wearing face coverings, they are clearly not interested in taking responsibility for their own orders. Instead, they are exporting their enforcement responsibilities to others and playing politics with the pandemic. Make no mistake: their actions have once again put retailers and their employees in harm’s way.
“Throughout this pandemic, Illinois retailers of all types and sizes including but not limited to grocery, hardware, restaurant, taverns, pharmacy, apparel, fitness, convenience stores, and gas stations, have done all that has been asked of them, and so much more. That is why the enactment of today’s emergency rule is such an injustice to retailers large and small.”
IRMA is usually not so strident.
*** UPDATE 1 *** Press release…
Governor JB Pritzker released the following statement following JCAR upholding enforcement rule.
I have always put the health and safety of Illinoisans first, and I’m gratified that local governments now have an additional way to keep their communities safe.
I want to thank the broad coalition of Illinoisans from around the state for their input and advocacy in support of science. Groups such as the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the Illinois Health and Hospital Association, the Illinois Public Health Association, Open Safe Illinois and our Safety Net Hospitals. As well as the Chicago Federation of Labor, the Illinois AFL-CIO, the Illinois Restaurant Association, National Nurses United Organizing Committee-Illinois Chapter and SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana worked together to ensure the state remains focused on beating this pandemic.
The vast majority of our communities and business owners are doing what’s right. Working alongside these partners, these rules will provide multiple opportunities for compliance before any penalty is issued and will help ensure that the minority of people who refuse to act responsibly won’t take our state backward. These rules will ensure that there is a commonsense way to enforce public health guidelines with an emphasis on education first so that Illinois can continue to make substantial progress in our fight against COVID-19.
…Adding… Press release…
The Illinois Fuel and Retail Association, representing the state’s gas stations and convenience stores, today issued the following statement in response to the decision by a legislative panel not to block a rule requiring masks in public places.
“Doing business in Illinois during this unprecedented time of conflict and challenge is now even harder.
A panel of legislators known as JCAR today could not find enough votes to block a misguided rule from Gov. Pritzker’s Administration requiring masks in stores and public places and fining business owners for violations. We will be considering other options, but for now, this policy will move ahead.
We do not oppose a strong public push for wearing masks and taking other protective measures in the fight against COVID-19. Our stores have detailed policies in place to keep customers protected themselves and from others through masks, social distancing and more. These steps are saving lives.
But requiring masks and punishing business owners, not customers, for not using them just doesn’t make sense. Businesses are struggling to open and stay open. We are not the problem, and yet again we are being treated as criminals. It’s not right, and it will not work.
We urge the Pritzker Administration to rethink this misguided policy that will make life harder for our small businesses, and instead partner with and support us to end this pandemic as quickly as possible and get our state back on the right track. Every moment counts.”
Today, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan’s campaign released its first television ad, “Personal,” which introduces Dirksen Londrigan’s personal health care story. In 2009, her 12-year-old son, Jack, spent nearly a month in the pediatric intensive care unit in critical condition from a rare, life threatening illness during which he was in a medically-induced coma and read his last rites twice before starting his long road to recovery.
Jack’s story drives Dirksen Londrigan to fight to keep the health protections we have in place while working to fix the parts that need fixing, like lowering the costs of prescription drugs and premiums.
The 60-second ad will air in the Champaign-Springfield-Decatur media market as part of a districtwide buy that includes broadcast, cable and digital platforms. It highlights Dirksen Londrigan’s commitment to ensuring access to quality, affordable health care for Central Illinois families.
“I know health care is personal to you, especially now,” said Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. “I’ll fight for every family to have quality, affordable care that won’t bankrupt them if they get sick.”
What I see families going through today reminds me a lot of what our family faced eleven years ago…
A rare infection put my son Jack in intensive care for 21 days, he was on a ventilator and read last rites twice before finally going home.
Without good health care we could have never afforded all the bills.
I’m Betsy Dirksen Londrigan and I know health care is personal to you, especially now.
I’ll fight for every family to have quality, affordable care that won’t bankrupt them if they get sick…
With lower premiums and prescription prices that guarantee your choice of doctors and health plans.
But the drug and insurance industries are standing in the way.
They’ve given millions to Washington politicians to vote their way on health care…
To gut protections for people with pre-existing conditions…
And overcharge patients for prescription drugs.
Corporate special interests can’t buy me. I don’t take their money.
I approved this message, because when your family’s health is at stake, your Congressman shouldn’t be working against you.
* Rodney Davis campaign…
CQ Roll Call has moved the race for Congress in IL-13 towards Rodney Davis and away from Betsy Londrigan. Last week, Roll Call moved the race to “Tilt R” from its previous “Toss-up” rating. And today, in her first TV ad, Londrigan continues to push the false claim that she doesn’t take campaign contributions from corporate interests, even though news reports say otherwise.
“Betsy Londrigan is taking her ‘no corporate money’ lie to the airwaves because she knows this race is moving away from her. Her hypocrisy is stunning. Londrigan’s campaign is funded in part by corporate lobbyists from Madigan’s ‘inner circle,’ ‘Big Pharma,’ and others. Londrigan knows the only way she can win is if she lies her way into Congress.” – Aaron DeGroot, Davis campaign spokesperson
Londrigan pushes “no corporate money” lie in first TV ad
In her first TV ad of the General Election season, Londrigan says “I don’t take” campaign contributions from “corporate special interests,” but news reports reveal that’s not true. Londrigan’s campaign is funded in part by corporate lobbyists and executives to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Londrigan’s campaign is funded in part by corporate lobbyists and executives
From WCIA’s 7/24/20 story titled, Despite corporate PAC pledge, Dirksen Londrigan takes campaign cash from corporate lobbyists:
“…Since launching her bid for Congress, Dirksen Londrigan has accepted at least $82,930 in campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists, including some who have represented pharmaceutical companies, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, gambling companies, red light camera companies, suburban municipal governments, telecommunications giant AT&T and utility company ComEd.
“She’s taken far more from corporate executives, many of whom are also regular donors to Democratic causes.
“The donations from ComEd and AT&T lobbyists in particular came under scrutiny after ComEd agreed to pay a $200 million fine to avoid federal bribery charges last Friday, and federal agents delivered a subpoena to Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s office searching for documents related to AT&T and its lobbying practices.”
“…Dirksen Londrigan reported $284,278 in household income so far this year, all of it coming from her husband’s salary at his corporate lobbying firm. It represents pharmaceutical clients like Horizon Pharma, which raised the price on an arthritis drug 11 times in seven years, reaching a price point of $2,979 for a 60-pill bottle.
“Another one of his pharmaceutical clients, Kaleo, was flagged in a recent Senate subcommittee report on the increasing prices of opioid overdose reversal drugs. The report found Kaleo contracted with pharmacy benefit managers to hike its prices from $575 per unit up to $4,100 — a spike of more than 600%.
“Londrigan’s campaign declined to comment on how she would handle any real or perceived conflicts of interest that could arise in Congress if she is ever in a position to vote on matters that pertain to her husband’s lobbying portfolio.”
Corporate lobbyists in Madigan’s “inner circle” are funding Londrigan’s campaign
A group of corporate lobbyists associated with Madigan, some of whom have lobbied for ComEd at varying times, have contributed a combined $9,350 to Londrigan’s campaign this election cycle. The Chicago Tribune referred to those lobbyists as members of Madigan’s “inner circle.”
Betsy is still holding onto corporate lobbyist cash from Mike Madigan’s cronies, and 16 days after she was called out for being a corporate money hypocrite, she remains SILENT as to whether or not she will return the money.
NRCC Comment: “No amount of television advertising can change the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a corporate money hypocrite whose campaign is funded by Mike Madigan’s corrupt cronies.” -NRCC Spokeswoman Carly Atchison
1. Voting is a fundamental, constitutional right that is central to our American democracy.
2. Governor J.B. Pritzker violated this right by signing into law a partisan voting scheme that is designed to harvest Democratic ballots, dilute Republican ballots, and, if the election still doesn’t turn out the way he wants it, to generate enough Democratic ballots after election day to sway the result. See Public Act 101-0642 a/k/a SB 1863, 101st General Assembly (“SB 1863”). The remaining Defendants are charged with carrying out this partisan scheme.
3. This civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief is filed to stop SB 1863 from going into effect. The claims arise under the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); and Article III, Section 4 of the Illinois Constitution.
The Democrats in the Illinois General Assembly snuck through SB 1863 in five days, from May 18-22, 2020, by hijacking a bill about the Freedom of Information Act, amending it to advance their partisan election agenda, and rushing it to passage before the people of Illinois could weigh in with their opposition.
SB 1863 was introduced in the Senate on February 15, 2019, as an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act, passed the Senate on April 4, 2019, underwent First Reading in the House on April 9, 2019, underwent Second Reading in the House on May 22, 2019, and languished for a year.
SB 1863 was suddenly rewritten in 2020 by House Floor Amendment 5, which was filed on May 19, 2020, and House Floor Amendment 6, which was filed on May 21, 2020. The bill passed the House later the same day, with only one Republican voting in favor. The Senate passed it the next day, with no Republicans voting in favor. […]
SB 1863 creates a partisan voting scheme that is designed to directly disenfranchise voters disfavored by Pritzker, to dilute the votes of those disfavored by Pritzker, and to violate the secrecy of voting in Illinois.
Many aspects of SB 1863 work together to create the scheme by which Pritzker plans to disenfranchise the Republican Party
The scheme begins by putting as many ballots into play for the election as possible by mailing an application for a mail-in ballot to every voter who voted in the 2018 general election, the 2019 consolidated election, or the 2020 general primary election. 10 ILCS 5/2B-15(b). That amounts to roughly 5 million mail-in ballot applications, which were supposed to have been sent by August 1.
A high likelihood exists that applications were sent to people who may no longer be eligible to vote in Illinois. For example, the Wall Street Journal discovered that at least one former voter in Washington state recently received his ballot in the mail at his new address in Texas.
The states that use mail-in voting took years to perfect their process as they enlarged eligibility gradually before launching statewide. Implementing vote- by-mail is a learning process. State officials must identify qualified vendors for printing ballots, develop tracking systems so voters can be assured their ballots will arrive on time, and develop methods of reviewing signatures that reduce the number of rejected ballots. Doing so takes “decades, not months.”
Attempting to implement a process overnight in a state as large as Illinois will inevitably lead to thousands of lost and delayed ballot applications and ballots. A recent election in another large state that rushed into voting by mail shows the perils that lie ahead for Illinois. Over 80,000 New York City Democratic presidential primary ballots were not counted in the June 23 election because they arrived late, lacked a postmark, failed to include a signature, or contained other defects. This number meant that a staggering 21% of the votes cast were not counted.
The hurried nature of implementation is not the only hurdle Illinois faces. Illinois state government is one of the most inept in the Union, and the public has no reason to expect a vote-by-mail system to work any more smoothly than a variety of projects Illinois has stumbled through in recent years.
For example, Illinois has suffered more than 120,000 cases of unemployment fraud during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Among many of the practical deficiencies of the Illinois vote-by-mail scheme is that it does not comport with recommendations issued by the United States Postal Service.
According to the USPS Inspector General, “ballots requested less than seven days before an election are at a high risk of not being delivered, completed by voters, and returned to the election offices in time.”
But Illinois allows voters to request an absentee ballot as late as October 29, 2020 – three business days before the election.
Indeed, the Inspector General’s report indicates that the Illinois deadline “put[s] ballots at high risk of not being delivered to voters before an election.”
Also, the Inspector General’s report states that “election offices should be educated on the benefits [that Intelligent Mail Barcodes] provide.” Id. at 7. Intelligent Mail Barcodes (IMbs) allow mailers and the Postal Service to track each ballot and would enable the Postal Service and election authorities to track ballots and identify delays.
SB 1863 makes no provision that mail ballots be tracked with IMbs or any other tracking device; therefore, thousands of voters will be disenfranchised when their ballots are lost in the mail.
For the ballots that are received by election authorities, the system for counting so many mail-in ballots will be overtaxed, leading to lax procedures for ensuring the secrecy of the ballot.
In addition to incompetence, SB 1863 will breed corruption. While other states may use mail-in voting, implementing a system overnight “in a state as notorious for election fraud as Illinois is” will open the door to criminal activity. Nader v. Keith, 385 F.3d 729, 733 (7th Cir. 2004). As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals already recognized, “Oregon, for example, has switched to a system of all- mail voting. O.R.S. § 254.465. But what works in the state of Oregon doesn’t necessarily work in Illinois, especially in light of the colorful history of vote fraud we’ve seen.”
The provision of the voting scheme that is most important to committing voter fraud is ballot harvesting. SB 1863 allows for ballot harvesting, in which a paid, partisan operative may collect Democratic mail-in ballot applications and ballots to ensure that they are turned in and counted and may collect Republican mail-in ballot applications and ballots to ensure that they are not turned in and counted.
As he was planning last month for the rollout of the state’s new rules concerning mail-in ballots for the Nov. 3 election, Sangamon County Clerk Don Gray said he wouldn’t be using the option of having drop-boxes.
Gray, whose office oversees elections in the county, had said that he had “concerns about the chain of custody of ballots” if they weren’t mailed or brought to his office in person during business hours.
But after receiving a copy of an ominous letter from the general counsel of the United States Postal Service, Gray is rethinking his position.
″… (U)nder our reading of Illinois’ election laws, certain deadlines for requesting and casting mail-in ballots are incongruous with the Postal Service’s delivery standards,” said the July 30 letter from Thomas Marshall. “This mismatch creates a risk that ballots requested near the deadline under state law will not be returned by mail in time to be counted under your laws as we understand them.”
* Just remember that anyone can sue anyone for just about anything, but this may leave a mark…
Earlier today, a putative class of Commonwealth Edison customers filed a civil racketeering lawsuit against Illinois Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, Commonwealth Edison Company (“ComEd”), ComEd’s parent Exelon Corporation, and several other defendants.
Stuart Chanen and Ariel Olstein of Chanen & Olstein; Patrick Giordano of Giordano & Associates, Ltd.; and Paul G. Neilan of The Law Offices of Paul G. Neilan, P.C., all Chicago-area lawyers, filed a two-count class action Complaint in federal court under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), Potter et al. v. Madigan et al., 20 cv 4675, Dkt. 1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2020).
The lawsuit, a copy of which is attached, alleges one count of racketeering under RICO’s civil provisions and one count of RICO conspiracy. The lawsuit asks for the following relief for ComEd’s consumers:
1. Payment by Defendants of at least $450 million in damages to ComEd consumers, including the $150 million in ill-gotten gains ComEd has admitted to and an additional $300 million under the RICO Act’s treble damages provision.
2. Immediate injunctive relief preventing Michael Madigan from participating in legislative activities involving electricity matters affecting Commonwealth Edison and Exelon.
3. Immediate injunctive relief preventing Michael Madigan from continuing to Chair the Democratic Party of Illinois and running it as a corrupt organization.
4. Additional injunctive relief enjoining ComEd from continuing to charge consumers for subsidies of Exelon-owned nuclear power plants.
Attorney Stuart Chanen, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who in private practice has won major civil rights cases on behalf of wrongfully convicted individuals, said: “We filed our civil RICO case now to protect Illinois ratepayers from further damage by Michael Madigan – in both his capacity as Speaker and as Chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois – and also to get our clients back the damages they have suffered from ComEd’s and Madigan’s bribery scheme.”
Mr. Chanen pointed out that neither the U.S.’s July 17 federal criminal case against ComEd, nor the fact that Madigan has not yet been included in that case, prohibit ComEd customers from obtaining injunctive relief against Madigan or from pursuing damages against ComEd in a civil RICO action.
In addition to Michael Madigan, among the prominent figures named as Defendants, are: former ComEd CEO Anne Pramaggiore; former ComEd EVP John Hooker; former ComEd SVP Fidel Marquez; Jay Doherty, the longtime President of the City Club of Chicago; and former City of Chicago Alderman Michael R. Zalewski.
In crafting the Complaint, Plaintiffs’ lawyers rely heavily on the admissions ComEd had already made in its Deferred Prosecution Agreement with U.S. Attorney John Lausch. ComEd’s admissions strongly implicated all of the Defendants. The Complaint puts particular emphasis on ComEd’s admission that it profited from the bribery scheme in excess of $150 million.
Because ComEd admitted the over $150 million bonanza and because the RICO statute specifically includes a treble damages award to punish racketeers, Attorney Patrick Giordano said that ComEd should carefully consider this choice: “Pay back the $150 million to ratepayers now or pay a joint and several $450 million judgment down the road.”
This case is not these lawyers’ first battle with ComEd. Attorney Patrick Giordano has 40 years of experience in litigation against ComEd and has won over $3 billion in refunds and rate reductions for consumers. Paul Neilan has twenty years of experience litigating against ComEd, including a 2013 lawsuit in Cook County challenging one of the very statutes, the Energy Infrastructure Modernization Act (“EIMA”), which we now know was procured through a bribery scheme. Mr. Chanen was co-counsel with Mr. Neilan in that case, Hawkins v. Commonwealth Edison Company, 2015 IL App (1st) 133678.
Mr. Neilan summed up matters this way: “Back then, our clients were the lone wolves crying foul. We knew that EIMA was bad for the ratepayers and obliterated any true regulation of ComEd as a utility. We also knew that Speaker Madigan had crammed the legislation through the General Assembly – we just didn’t know then that he did so as payback for numerous bribes ComEd had paid to his associates. But we know it now.”
“We apologize for the past conduct that did not live up to our values and have made significant improvements to our compliance practices to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again,” said ComEd Vice President of Communications Paul Elsberg. “The improper conduct described in the deferred prosecution agreement, however, does not mean that consumers were harmed by the legislation that was passed in Illinois.”
“The DPA makes no such allegations, and in fact the bipartisan legislation resulted in substantial benefits for ComEd’s customers, including 70 percent improved reliability since 2012 and billions of dollars in savings for customers, while residential customers’ bills are lower than they were nearly a decade ago and ComEd recently requested a third delivery rate decrease in a row, its fifth in 10 years,” Elsberg said. “ComEd has made some of the largest improvements in service at the best value of any utility serving a U.S. major metro area. This in no way excuses the conduct described in the DPA, but that is a distinct issue from the effect of the legislation for ComEd’s customers.”
“We filed our civil RICO case now to protect Illinois ratepayers from further damage by Michael Madigan – in both his capacity as Speaker and as Chair of the Democratic Party of Illinois – and also to get our clients back the damages they have suffered from ComEd’s and Madigan’s bribery scheme,” said attorney Stuart Chanen.
The mayor of southwest suburban Crestwood faces a federal bribery charge in a new indictment made public Friday that centers on the politically connected red-light camera company SafeSpeed, court records show.
Louis Presta, 69, has also been charged with filing false tax returns and lying to the FBI and IRS, allegedly about whether an envelope Presta took during a March 2018 meeting with a SafeSpeed representative had been stuffed full of $5,000 cash.
Presta’s indictment is the latest public sign of the feds’ ongoing public corruption investigations, which last month led to a bribery charge against the utility company ComEd. However, Presta’s indictment appears to be part of a separate investigation that earlier this year led to a guilty plea by former state Sen. Martin Sandoval.
In the Presta case, prosecutors say Presta sought and received benefits from SafeSpeed representatives while SafeSpeed sought to expand its services in Crestwood. They also say Presta was interviewed by federal authorities in September, around the time of a series of raids by federal agents that included Sandoval’s office at the state capitol in Springfield.
The mayor of Crestwood has been indicted by a federal grand jury for using an interstate facility in aid of bribery, and lying to federal law enforcement about his request and receipt of benefits from a representative of a red-light camera company that provided services to the southwest suburb.
LOUIS PRESTA, 69, of Crestwood, is charged with three counts of using a facility in interstate commerce in aid of bribery and official misconduct, two counts of willfully filing a false income tax return, one count of willfully failing to file an income tax return, and one count of making false statements to the FBI and IRS. The indictment was returned Thursday in U.S. District Court in Chicago. Arraignment has not yet been scheduled.
The indictment was announced by John R. Lausch, Jr., United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois; Emmerson Buie, Jr., Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Field Office of the FBI; and Kathy A. Enstrom, Special Agent-in-Charge of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division in Chicago. The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher J. Stetler and James P. Durkin.
According to the indictment, the red-light camera company provided camera services to Crestwood that enabled the municipality to issue tickets to motorists for certain traffic violations. During that time and while the company was attempting to provide additional such services to Crestwood, Presta asked for and accepted benefits from representatives of the company, the indictment states.
The false statement charge pertains to Presta’s September 2019 interview with the FBI and IRS, during which Presta denied receiving gifts, cash, or campaign contributions from the red-light camera company. When shown a recording of a March 7, 2018, meeting at which Presta allegedly accepted from the company representative an envelope containing $5,000 in cash, Presta falsely stated that there was no money in the envelope, the indictment states.
The tax charges in the indictment accuse Presta of willfully filing a false income tax return for the calendar years 2015 and 2018, and willfully failing to file an income tax return for the calendar year 2014.
The public is reminded that an indictment is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The bribery and false statement counts are each punishable by up to five years in prison. Filing a false tax return is punishable by up to three years, while failing to file a tax return carries a maximum sentence of one year. If convicted, the Court must impose a reasonable sentence under federal sentencing statutes and the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
* A provision in state law lifting contribution caps when wealthy candidates start spending big money is being gamed by all four legislative leaders to allow them to raise however much they want. From the BGA…
In 2009, with yet another governor ensnared in scandal, Illinois’ Democratic legislative leaders authored a package of laws they promised would begin to reform Illinois’ culture of corruption.
One of the biggest items in the legislative package would finally establish statewide limits on campaign contributions, a measure Illinois was one of the last states to adopt.
House Speaker Michael Madigan, who sponsored the legislation, hailed it as a way to “help restore public confidence in Illinois government.” State Sen. Don Harmon, the Democratic sponsor in the Senate, praised it for enacting “historic contribution caps, real disclosure requirements and strict enforcement measures.”
But years later, Madigan and Harmon are using a controversial loophole written into the reform bill to raise millions of dollars above the limits the legislation set. Their Republican colleagues have also blown past the limits, as all four men have collected a combined $44 million more than the contribution limits allow, a Better Government Association examination shows.
Most of that money was doled out to support favored candidates in their respective chambers, records show, as part of a longstanding tactic to win loyalty and ensure their own status atop their party hierarchy.
“They completely gamed it,” said Cynthia Canary, former executive director of the organization now called Reform for Illinois, who helped negotiate the decade-old reform measure.
At the time, the law limited individual campaign contributions to $5,000 per politician, corporate and union contributions to $10,000 and contributions from political action committees to $50,000.
All four leaders are unapologetic about bypassing the limits as part of a political strategy they say is necessary for their parties to compete in elections.
The stark alternative would be to get rid of the provision. But then one candidate could outspend an opponent at will and candidates cannot be barred from spending as much of their own money as they want, per the US Supreme Court. There’s also the issue of independent expenditure committees, which can raise unlimited funds and could overwhelm candidates who couldn’t raise funds above a certain amount. Raising the threshold to, say, $500K instead of $100K, might be one way to do it, but it would be a simple matter for people like Madigan to just borrow the money from a bank and pay it back the next day with existing campaign funds.
* The Question: Any ideas for addressing this?
…Adding… Not a bad idea, but doesn’t include the IE component…
I’ll take a stab. If a self funder enters the fray with a statement of candidacy - the opponent or party leader can petition the board of elections to increase the caps. Does away with the fig leaf of donating just to lift the cap. https://t.co/Zw7PGT1uI0
State contribution limits can either be iron clad but not fair or they can be fair but easy to circumvent, but like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle it is impossible to do both at the same time, given current US Supreme Court rulings.
This piece is well researched and does a good job of explaining the history, mechanics and politics of how this played out. But the context that is missing is the limitations on states’ ability to implement contribution limits that are both fair and effective.
Per US Supreme Court decisions you cannot place contribution limits on an individual who is willing to spend their own money and you cannot place contribution limits on any Superpac (IE) that is willing to independently raise and spend unlimited funds.
There is no law the State of Illinois could have passed that would have limited or prevented JB Pritzker from spending $175 million on his own campaign in 2018.
Given those limitations states can only place contribution limits on any other candidates/committees. Would it be fair to pass iron clad limits on a campaign that couldn’t self fund and faced such an opponent? Of course not.
These fairness provisions exist to lift the restrictions candidates might face in the event of such circumstances. However it does open the door for candidates to find a way to lift the contribution limits in their races.
And that’s why we are where we are. We can make changes to the various provisions to tweak this or that but the core trade off will remain the same: contribution limits can either be iron clad but not fair or they can be fair but easy to circumvent.
I think I’ll withdraw the question unless you insist otherwise.
Governor JB Pritzker was ordered to appear before a Clay County judge next Friday at 1:00 PM to explain why he “should not be held in indirect civil contempt.” Failure to appear in court may result in warrant for arrest, the order says.
State Rep. Darren Bailey (R-Xenia) complained to the Clay County judge that Governor Pritzker is ignoring the court’s previous order and is exercising emergency powers concerning the COVID crisis extending beyond state law’s 30-day provision for such powers.
On the same day that the Governor asked the General Assembly to do more to keep Illinoisans safe, the House GOP is instead rejecting science and perpetuating a sideshow to this global pandemic. This motion for contempt is legally baseless, frivolous and a distraction from the serious crisis facing our state. Not a single member of the GOP caucus in the General Assembly has yet to publicly express their rejection of or outrage at this legal maneuvering that creates unnecessary confusion around public health guidance.
The issuance of the Order to Show Cause, without even allowing the Governor an opportunity to respond to the flawed motion for contempt, filed only days ago, is procedurally improper, violating elementary principles of fairness. The State is grappling with its most serious challenge to the lives and health of its residents - a global pandemic - with an increasing number of counties at a warning level today due to outbreaks of cases, and all the while the GOP is playing politics. The Governor will continue to focus on protecting public health and not on the political sideshow in Clay County.
Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin released the following statement regarding Governor Pritzker’s proposal of new emergency rules regarding mask wearing:
“Today, I am calling on Governor Pritzker to abandon his ‘mask rule’ and work with the legislature on this issue. I am committed to respecting his priorities while recognizing the undue hardship his current rule places on businesses that are already struggling across Illinois. To do this, the Governor should immediately call the legislature into special session where we can also address the urgent need for ethics reform and the controversies surrounding the Democratic Party and Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives.”
Again, it’s already in state statute that violating any IDPH rule is a misdemeanor. The only difference with this newly proposed rule is that it exempts individuals and creates a three-step process before an entity can be charged if the local state’s attorney even goes along.
Thoughts?
*** UPDATE 1 *** Jordan Abudayyeh in the governor’s office…
As I’m sure Leader Durkin is aware, Illinois reported a high number of new COVID cases again today, similar to numbers we saw near the height of the wave of cases last spring. We have learned that quick and decisive action needs to be taken to stop the spread of this deadly virus. In the spring session the administration withdrew emergency rules after the General Assembly said they would take up this critical issue during session. Leader Durkin and his colleagues in the General Assembly failed to vote on any enforcement that protects the health and safety of Illinoisans, indeed many of his caucus members railed against any legal measures to curtail the spread of COVID-19. So as promised, the administration has introduced a new rule incorporating feedback from lawmakers and stakeholders like the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and the Illinois Restaurant Association. Existing public health rules allow the State to take action to stop the spread of infectious diseases like whooping cough, measles and many others and should include COVID-19. The only difference now is that there is a loud super-minority playing politics with public health. We can only prevent the spread of COVID-19 by working together to do what’s right, and the Governor urges the members of JCAR to protect the health and safety of the public.
…Adding… The administration may have incorporated “feedback” from IRMA, but the group is opposed to this rule…
The Illinois Retail Merchants Association says the state’s enforcement actions should target individuals who do not comply with mask mandates and other public health guidelines… rather than, quote, “demonizing innocent businesses.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** Rob Karr with IRMA told me the Abudayyeh statement is “not accurate.” He did get a call yesterday, but he was never actually given any language by the governor’s office and was never asked for any input from them.
…Adding… I’m told the input the governor’s office received from IRMA came via two JCAR members.
* Filed by the attorney general in Clay County late yesterday…
It has been more than a month since Plaintiff Darren Bailey received precisely what his pleadings sought—a declaration by this Court that the Governor’s authority to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, 20 ILCS 3305 et seq. (“Emergency Management Act”) ceased to exist as of April 8. Order ¶ 3 (July 2, 2020) (“July 2 Order”). But even as Bailey championed this lawsuit as “freeing business and the people of Illinois” from “one-person rule” and a “tyrannical government,” in the real world nothing changed. The Court’s nonfinal, interlocutory order granting Bailey’s request for declaratory relief does not prevent the Governor from continuing to exercise his powers under the Emergency Management Act to protect the people of this State from the Covid-19 pandemic.
Public rhetoric notwithstanding, Bailey has made every effort to prevent this Court from issuing either an injunction that would bar the Governor from exercising Emergency Management Act powers, July 2 Order ¶ 5 (granting motion to withdraw request for injunction), or a final judgment that would resolve the parties’ dispute in this Court once and for all, Response to Defendants [sic] Motion to Dismiss ¶¶ 3–11 (July 22, 2020) (“July 22 Response”). The July 2 Order is neither final nor enforceable because it involves fewer than all issues and does not include “a finding that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal.” Reed v. City of Belleville, 13 Ill. App. 3d 1093, 1094 (5th Dist. 1973).
For his latest effort to keep this case in this Court and abuse the judicial process for political gain, Bailey now moves to add an additional count disputing whether a disaster currently exists in Clay County within the meaning of the Emergency Management Act. There is no reason why the Court should entertain the matter. This Court already determined that the Governor’s authority under the Emergency Management Act is limited to 30 days per disaster— regardless of whether a Covid-19 disaster continues to exist in Clay County (or anywhere else in the State). Bailey’s current motion to add a new count is just another maneuver to thwart appellate review of the Court’s ruling. The proposed additional count is also defective as a matter of law and fails to plead sufficient facts to state a cause of action. The motion to add it should be denied.
The Court should deny Bailey’s motion to add an additional count for four independent reasons:
First, Bailey’s proposed additional count fails to state a cause of action because the Emergency Management Act does not require the Governor to make disaster determinations on a county-by-county basis.
Second, Bailey’s proposed additional count fails to state a cause of action because he does not plead facts sufficient to show that there is currently no “public health emergency” in Clay County.
Third, Bailey lacks standing to pursue his proposed additional count because a decision in his favor will not redress his claimed injury. This is because Bailey fails to challenge an independent basis for the Governor’s authority to exercise emergency powers—the existence of an “epidemic” in Clay County.
Fourth, Bailey’s proposed additional count is untimely and, in the context of his many other gambits designed to delay the conclusion of these proceedings, reflects an ongoing bad-faith effort to abuse the judicial process for political gain.
According to Bailey, the fact that no one has yet to die in Clay County from Covid-19, and only 9 people to date have contracted it, means there is, in his opinion, no “high probability” that “a large number of deaths” will occur—and likewise no “high probability” of “widespread exposure” to a virus “that poses a significant risk of future harm to a large number of people.”
Bailey’s argument reduces to the proposition that an event has no probability of occurring until it has occurred. Or to put it another way, a highly contagious and deadly virus has no probability of causing widespread harm until it does. This reasoning is stunningly illogical, and the Court should not accept it. […]
Ordinarily, a litigant who had convinced a court to rule in his favor on the merits of his case would take immediate action to effectuate that result. Here, Bailey did the opposite. He resisted every effort to dismiss his one outstanding count and transform the Court’s interlocutory order into a final judgment. July 22 Response ¶¶ 3–11. To this day, the July 2 Order binds no one and has no legal effect because Bailey apparently prefers it to remain a meaningless piece of paper—in stark distinction to the far-reaching consequences he ascribes to it in the public eye.
Bailey’s proposed additional count is designed to further his strategy to drag out this case without an appealable order. Bailey intends for this Court not to resolve his dispute but rather to amplify it. This is an abuse of the judicial process.
Its no surprise that our numbers even as the governor suggested yesterday in southern Illinois are increasing you know per capita, per our population. I personally still do not feel threatened by those numbers and statistics. When we see we’re testing, tests are up and so obviously so are potential positive results. What is good is that I am hearing, I have heard so far nothing but success – trying to get some doctors online eventually – regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine and the z pack process. Several area hospitals, doctors, are prescribing that and its working. I have friends who have tested positive. I have people who I have known whose family members are in the hospital. I’ve talked anyone I can get in contact with and that I can talk to locally and just kind of understand and hear and so far the people that I’ve talked to would not have changed anything. The one gentleman the we’re praying for, that is in the hospital, an older man, he had the choice to make whether or not to be in and out. And he just simply didn’t want to live as restricted because we don’t know when this is going to end if it is ever going to end. […]
But regarding the older gentleman that’s in St. Louis in ICU, the family, it just, it is what it is.
* I’ve been telling subscribers about this for a few days now…
Building on efforts to protect Illinois’ workers and communities in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Governor JB Pritzker announced that the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) will file emergency rules for businesses, schools, and child care establishments regarding the use of face coverings and the size of gatherings. The governor also signed SB471 to help protect workers who continue to serve on the frontlines of the fight against COVID-19.
“As I’ve visited with and listened to mayors and health departments all across our state, it’s clear there is still an even greater need to get people to wear masks – especially to protect frontline workers, whether they’re at the front of a store asking you to put on your mask or whether they’re responding to 911 calls to save those in distress,” said Governor JB Pritzker. “These rules, which provide multiple opportunities for compliance before any penalty is issued, are a commonsense way to enforce public health guidelines. Illinois has made substantial progress in our fight against COVID-19 because the vast majority of communities and business owners have done the right thing. These rules will help ensure that the minority of people who refuse to act responsibly won’t take our state backward.”
“We know that face coverings are key to helping prevent the spread of COVID-19, but it only works if everyone wears them,” said IDPH Director Dr. Ngozi Ezike. “We are seeing cases increasing each day and hearing about people not complying with the masking mandate. This rule is an effort to help keep all of us healthy and decrease the risk of contracting COVID-19.”
NEW IDPH COVID-19 EMERGENCY RULES
In an effort to maintain the progress we have made in Illinois’ COVID-19 pandemic response, the Pritzker administration is filing emergency rules for businesses, schools, and child care establishments regarding the use of face coverings and the size of gatherings.
These rules provide multiple opportunities for compliance before any penalty is issued, giving local health departments and local law enforcement more leeway to support community public health in a productive manner. While existing, pre-pandemic enforcement laws, like revoking a license, are stringent and severe, these rules provide flexibility for local communities and a measured process to help keep people safe.
That process is as follows:
• First, businesses will be given a warning in the form of written notice and encouraged to voluntarily comply with public health guidance.
• Second, businesses that do not voluntarily comply will be given an order to have some or all of their patrons leave the premises as needed to comply with public health guidance and reduce risks.
• Third, if the business continues to refuse to comply, the business can receive a class A misdemeanor and be subject to a fine ranging from $75-$2,500.
These rules do not apply to individuals and penalties will not exceed a misdemeanor and a $75-$2,500 fine.
The emergency rules also reinforce the authority of IDPH and local health departments to investigate COVID-19 cases and reaffirm that businesses have a responsibility to cooperate with those investigations.
The proposal now goes before JCAR, which is scheduled to meet next week. Again, subscribers know more.
* SB471…
As Illinois’ essential workers continue to serve on the frontlines of the fight against COVID-19, Governor Pritzker signed SB 471 to expand workplace protections. To directly protect workers in retail, the law adds a penalty for assaulting or battering a retail worker who is conveying public health guidance, such as requiring patrons to wear face-coverings or promoting social distancing. This provision sends the message that it’s vitally important for workers to be both respected and protected while serving on the front lines.
“As we continue to adapt to the changes forced on us by the current pandemic, we have to also create a response that addresses the long-time issues it has exacerbated,” said Senate Majority Leader Kimberly A. Lightford. “Our essential workers put their lives at risk for us to stay safe, and it is clear that we have to continue to do better to protect working class people with a renewed commitment to providing basic rights for everyone.”
“As our state faces the challenges created by the ongoing global pandemic, we are doing all we can to support and protect our front line and essential workers,” said State Representative Jay Hoffman. “This legislation allows front line workers that have been impacted by COVID-19 to focus on recovering while sending a clear message to all our essential workers that we are behind them and will do all we can to protect their safety and well-being.”
The law also increases paid disability leave for any injury that occurs after March 9, 2020 by 60 days for firefighters, law enforcement and paramedics whose recovery was hindered by COVID-19.
More specifically, eligible employees include:
• Any part-time or full-time State correctional officer or any other full or part-time employee of the Department of Corrections
• Any full or part-time employee of the Prisoner Review Board
• Any full or part-time employee of the Department of Human Services working within a penal institution or a State mental health or developmental disabilities facility operated by the Department of Human Services
• Any full-time law enforcement officer or full-time firefighter
These measure build upon the Pritzker administration’s efforts to protect the safety and livelihood of Illinois residents by continuing to enforce all labor laws during the pandemic.
A member of the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules who has seen a draft copy of the rule expected to be addressed Tuesday in Springfield said a special session of the legislature is needed to debate the issues, rather than unilateral rules.
“I am very skeptical and uncomfortable with the administration setting up new criminal enforcement regulation outside of the legislative process,” said state Sen. Paul Shcimpf, R-Waterloo. […]
Schimpf said the legislature needed to make state laws, not the governor.
State statutes have long made any violation of an IDPH rule a Class A Misdemeanor. There’s absolutely nothing new here except for the procedure outlined above to narrow the scope and the downright harmful politics of this pandemic.
