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
* A great video of two kids listening to this song for the very first time trended on Twitter today. It brought back memories of the first time I heard it. I was walking past a parking lot and some guys were standing around playing it loud on a boom box. The song stopped me in my tracks. And when the drums kicked in, I was so blown away I walked over to find out who it was.
So, thanks, two kids on Twitter for reviving that memory. Turn it up…
* 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.
